I don't know why the fact I consider homosexual sex to be sinful is so hilarious.

That's part of what makes it so funny.

That's part of what makes it so funny.

Indeed. It's sort of like a horribly tone-deaf "singer" blinking in puzzlement when people start booing & throwing things at him.

That's part of what makes it so funny.

I have to admit, Snapper, you set yourself up for this one :-)

BTW, was my brief summary in post 160 of how the catholic church views masturbation correct?

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

It's being used in the context of its use in the New Testament. It's a historical movement in Judaisim, most notable in Christian textual tradition for its sophistry and disingenuousness. My use of it was a reference to how the same group is condemned in the gospels. I don't get why you're taking issue with it--no one reading it mistook the meaning.

I didn't mistake the meaning, either; I (mildly) condemned it. That "Christian textual tradition" is often anti-Jewish is hardly news, is it? "Sophists" might be a good parallel... if all other greek schools of thought at the time died out and sophistry were all that was left and if it were actually the basis for Greek culture for the past 2000 years, such that by condemning sophistry one were actually condemning, er, Greekism. What Christians disparagingly label "Phariseeism" is Judaism, or at least the 99.7% of Judaism that isn't Karaite.

Do people in everyday life judge religions on their theology though? That would be putting a lot of trust in texts that may or may not be widely read and/or heeded, to say nothing of how followers interpret said text.

This is fun, I guess Dave learned at some point that the Pharisee movement of Jesus's times became the basis for the later Rabbinical Judaism movement, which became the predominant movement in Judaism, down to today...

so therefore Pharisee= Jew

therefore using the word pharisee to describe someone negatively is a slur akin to the phrase "indian giver"

They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing- Nieporent proves that regularly, give him a little bit of knowledge he will draw the wrong conclusion and extrapolate from there.

I've found this to be an invaluable resource when digging into matters theological and eschatological.

Good god someone has way too much time on their hands. That is a lot of missed masturbation time.

the 99.7% of Judaism that isn't Karaite.

It's more fun if you read that final word as "Karate."

Good god someone has way too much time on their hands. That is a lot of missed masturbation time.

It only takes one hand to read the internet.

It only takes one hand to read the internet.

Did you take a look at the link? Someone 'translated'* the bible into LOLCATZ speak.

*I am not religious but even I shudder with blasphemic horror in using that term.

EDIT: If you can do that and masturbate, well then my hat is off to you sir, I obviously have much to learn.

If you can do that and masturbate, well then my hat is off to you sir, I obviously have much to learn.

Haven't tried and don't want to.

@197... and this is different from how other holy texts are created how?

If you can do that and masturbate, well then my hat is off to you sir

Dr. Onan Winguedinque, is that you?

the 99.7% of Judaism that isn't Karaite.

It's more fun if you read that final word as "Karate."

More fun but entirely inaccurate. Jew-jitsu is the Chosen Martial Art.

All these years and I've been practicing Kung Jew, and now I find it's all for naught.

updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word"

What.

and this is different from how other holy texts are created how?

This sentence is much more fun if you pretend it is referencing the first line of #211

What.

Word.

updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word"

What.

You know, like this:

Urban Youth #1: "Yo yo yo homie, I gots the dope-ass kicks back at de crib!"

Urban Youth #2: "Word?"

Urban Youth #1: "Word!"

[Edit - Props to #219, I ain't no biter.]

and this is different from how other holy texts are created how?

This sentence is much more fun if you pretend it is referencing the first sentence of #211

'Did you take a look at the link?'?

I have to admit, Snapper, you set yourself up for this one :-)

BTW, was my brief summary in post 160 of how the catholic church views masturbation correct?

I could see viewing my position as wrongheaded, but not funny. It's a mainstream view once you get outside of secular American and European precincts.

Your summary is close.

Basically, the teaching is that sex has two purposes; bonding of the married couple (uniative) , and producing children (procreative). Any sexual act or coupling that frustrates one or both of those goals is illicit.

So, masturbation fails both tests.

bonding (uniative) of the married couple

Anyone else read that as urinative? It works on so many levels.

when digging into matters theological and eschatological

...I am the very model of a modern Major-General!

I'd be indifferent to the notion of what a particular religious institution thinks is sinful but for the possibility of their teachings being given the force of law.

As someone with proximate experience with how the earthly representatives of one particularly powerful institution dealt with sexual issues among their own clergy.... it's not even that funny.

If Rick Santorum is an exemplar of who is sent to Heaven...I wouldn't want to go.

I could see viewing my position as wrongheaded, but not funny.

If that doesn't work for you, consider how often you hear aged and rotten cold cuts, vegetables, and other associated produce called "funny".

Any sexual act or coupling that frustrates one or both of those goals is illicit.

You can't really mean "frustrate" there, because fornication and masturbation don't impact sex among married couples in the least. At most, you can say, "Does not further."

You can't really mean "frustrate" there, because fornication and masturbation don't impact sex among married couples in the least. At most, you can say, "Does not further."

Fair.

To restate, to be licit, the act must 1) be in the context of marriage, 2) be uniative, 3) be open to procreation.

Your summary is close.

Basically, the teaching is that sex has two purposes; bonding of the married couple (uniative) , and producing children (procreative). Any sexual act or coupling that frustrates one or both of those goals is illicit.

So, masturbation fails both tests.

What about the guy (or girl) who just can't find anyone he wants to marry who also wants to marry him? You're not condoning sex for him at all, since he's not married. You're not even condoning masturbation for him. So basically you're advocating taking one of life's pleasures away from him (sex, in any form) because he's not married and/or not procreating inside marriage.

As you know I'm not part of the Snapper Is Terrible brigade here. But that seems like a really unfortunate position for someone to take.

What about the guy (or girl) who just can't find anyone he wants to marry who also wants to marry him? You're not condoning sex for him at all, since he's not married. You're not even condoning masturbation for him. So basically you're advocating taking one of life's pleasures away from him (sex, in any form) because he's not married and/or not procreating inside marriage.

That seems like a really unfortunate position for someone to take.

I never said it wasn't hard. A lot of Christian teachings are hard. Who wants to turn the other cheek? Or be temperate?

If that doesn't work for you, consider how often you hear aged and rotten cold cuts, vegetables, and other associated produce called "funny".

Funny.

Who wants to turn the other cheek?

Masochists?

I never said it wasn't hard. A lot of Christian teachings are hard. Who wants to turn the other cheek? Or be temperate?

Or give all their money to the poor? We all know how eagerly the Church has embraced that one.

You always talking 'bout masterbation and fornication, you ain't never gonna get on MTV that way, Mojo.

Gef, are you agreeing with me again? I thought you had concluded that agreeing with me was bad for your health.

Yeah, it is, but my (digestive) health is pretty poorish anyway, so what the hell.

I'm totally with David on this - DO NOT use "Pharisee" as a slur. It's anti-Jewish to do so, pure and simple.

1) It's a bit of an overstatement to say that contemporary Judaism is Pharisaism - there are significant continuities between the rabbinic tradition and the Pharisees, but there are breaks as well. The rabbis appear to have agreed with the Pharisees on most issues of debate, and to have considered the great leaders of the Pharisees to be their predecessors, but they pretty explicitly refused to identify themselves as Pharisees and they seem to betray some concerns about tendencies to sectarianism among the historical Pharisees. See Shaye Cohen, "The Significance of Yavneh".

2) The fact that the rabbis do identify Pharisees as their predecessors should be good enough for the "do not do that" argument. Rabbinic Judaism, broadly speeaking, imagines itself in historical continuity with the Pharisees, and so using "Pharisee" as a slur rebounds against contemporary Jews who place themselves within the rabbinic tradition.

3) If you need more, well, we do have significant evidence of Pharisaism from Josephus, Philo, Paul, the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud. The depiction of the Pharisees in the Gospels as "hypocritical" or "disingenuous" bears zero relation to the more objective evidence from these other sources. (Note that Paul speaks very proudly of his Pharisaic education and practice in Philippians.) To use "Pharisee" as a slur is to ignore the evidence that the depiction of the Pharisees in the Gospels is highly tendentious and almost certainly just wrong in general.

4) The Gospels, especially those that spend a lot of time talking about the Pharisees, are extremely dubious and dangerous sources for knowledge about Judaism. The Gospel of Matthew, which features the "woe to the Pharisees" and "you hypocrites" sections, also has "the Jews" calling for Jesus' execution and saying, "his blood be on us and our children." This is certainly historically inaccurate, and has been the source of terrible violence by Christians against Jews over the centuries. To use "Pharisee" as a slur is to place yourself in line with Matthew's depiction of the Jews. That's placing yourself within the tradition of violent Christian anti-Judaism.

So, in conclusion, do not do that.

So, in conclusion, do not do that.

As someone who hates being told what to do, I'm gong to have to restrain myself from using "Pharisee" in every ####### sentence I type or utter from now on. If my Jewish grandfather cared, he shouldn't have died before I was born, the ####### Pharisee.

Or give all their money to the poor? We all know how eagerly the Church has embraced that one.

That's an ancient debate, and one where there is no clear answer. The paradox is nicely shown in Matthew, Ch. 19.

[16] And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? [17] Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [18] He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. [19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [20] The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?

[21] Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. [Matthew 19:21] [Latin] [22] And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. [23] Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. [24] And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. [25] And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved?

[26] And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.

It's clear that it is critical to follow the commandments, and good to give everything to the poor. But also clear that the rich man can still be saved.

So the tension between trying to be perfect, and the advantages of owning property and wealth; i.e. if the Church and Christians have no excess wealth, then no one could engage in charity.

As someone who hates being told what to do, I'm gong to have to restrain myself from using "Pharisee" in every ####### sentence I type or utter from now on. If my Jewish grandfather cared, he shouldn't have died before I was born, the ####### Pharisee.

Hah! I like the chutzpah!

Yes, anti-Jewish slurs are funny!

It's clear that it is critical to follow the commandments, and good to give everything to the poor. But also clear that the rich man can still be saved.

That's one reading of Matthew 19.26 - that the "with God all things are possible" refers to the possible salvation of the rich man despite his failure to give everything away. It could refer, instead, to the possibility that a truly godly man would be able to give away his possessions.

John Dominic Crossan's work on the historical Jesus in the context of the ancient Mediterranean economy suggests that this was Jesus' meaning in this and other similar passages - that God and the coming of God's kingdom enable us to act in this world in radically new ways.

That's an ancient debate, and one where there is no clear answer.

Well how unlike everything else in the Bible.

Hah! I like the chutzpah!

schmuck

Jesus was a good catcher. Once when Peter shook him off, he came out to give him a sermon on the mound.

Yes, anti-Jewish slurs are funny!

What's your point, bubbeleh?

schmuck

Hey, you should be happy the Pope doesn't make you yids wear yellow stars anymore. Plus you can hold public office now.

I don't usually capitalize things, I shouldn't have capitalized "do not". It just screws up the tone. I don't think anyone's being horribly bigoted or whatever, I'm just saying that "using 'Pharisee' in the context of its use in the New Testament" is a problematic thing to do for a set of reasons (helpfully laid out in a numbered list), and still trades in anti-Jewish rhetoric that I'm assuming we'd all rather not participate in.

That's one reading of Matthew 19.26 - that the "with God all things are possible" refers to the possible salvation of the rich man despite his failure to give everything away.

But could god make a needle with an eye so small that not even he could pass a camel through it?

What's your point, bubbeleh?

I like to crack a little bubbeleh myself, from time to time. Strictly the kosher stuff, here, though.

It's a bit of an overstatement to say that contemporary Judaism is Pharisaism

The Pharisees were a liberalizing/decentralizing influence, correct?

The Pharisees were a liberalizing/decentralizing influence, correct?

"Liberalizing" isn't exactly right. "Democratizing/decentralizing" is better - the Pharisees appear to have been one of the driving forces behind the "explosion of purity" in Jewish life, as ritual and ethical rules which had previously mostly applied to the temple precincts came to be followed by ordinary Jews in their day-to-day lives. There is, for example, archaeological evidence of a massive increase in the use of stoneware in the Roman period. This is outside of the normal progression of things - we're way past the stone age - and the best explanation is that (in rabbinic interpretation, at least) stone vessels do not contract impurity, and so Jews observing more broad applications of ritual/purity laws would prefer stone vessels for cooking and eating.

That's not exactly a "liberalizing" influence - the Pharisees wanted to extend the reach of the covenant and God's laws further into the lives of ordinary Jews. But it is very much a democratizing / decentralizing movement, devolving authority from the priests and the rulers to the people.

With the fall of the temple in 70 CE and the fall of Jerusalem in 135, the power of the priests and various Jerusalem leaders was lessened, and those Jewish movements that had more authority apart from the temple and the government gained in stature. (There's evidence, based on Josephus, for believing that the power of the Pharisees increased over the period from 80-110 or so). The rabbis differ from the Pharisees in certain ways - the Pharisees appear to have a tendency to separatism and sectarianism that the rabbis didn't accept - but they shared the interest in expanding the reach of ritual and purity laws, a belief in the "oral Torah" or "traditions of the elders" as a supplement to the written Torah, they did not depend on the temple for authority, and the rabbis did claim as their predecessors leading Pharisees such as Rabbi Gamaliel.

- the Pharisees appear to have a tendency to separatism and sectarianism that the rabbis didn't accept -

Rabbinical Jews do not have a tendency to separatism and sectarianism? Ever been to Brooklyn?

Ever been to Brooklyn?

Hmmm, we just discussed whether to visit Brooklyn in the "Human Cespedes" thread.

Basically, the teaching is that sex has two purposes; bonding of the married couple (uniative) , and producing children (procreative). Any sexual act or coupling that frustrates one or both of those goals is illicit.

So, masturbation fails both tests.

Well - to paraphrase something somebody famous once said: "sooner or later, you sleep in your own space. Either way, it's ok. You're gettin' laid."

Billy Joel

That's not exactly a "liberalizing" influence - the Pharisees wanted to extend the reach of the covenant and God's laws further into the lives of ordinary Jews. But it is very much a democratizing / decentralizing movement, devolving authority from the priests and the rulers to the people.

With Jesus' teachings taking this movement toward decentralization even further, with or without slurs on the Pharisees, yes?

I wouldn't really say "further." The decentralizing impetus of the Pharisaic movement depended on the expansion of temple purity to the people, and Jesus or the emerging Christian movement appear to have opposed this (if we take something like Mark 7 as evidence). Jesus appears to have radicalized certain other laws (divorce, adultery, economic relations), while opposing the Pharisaic expansion of others.

Both the emerging Jesus movement and the Pharisees seem to have established themselves in opposition to the priests and other authorities in Jerusalem. It's not simple to say who went "further". Jesus did get hisself executed, but (1) the Romans did it, and (2) he was a peasant leader without many supporters, while the Pharisees had a much broader base of support.

I'm totally with David on this - DO NOT use "Pharisee" as a slur. It's anti-Jewish to do so, pure and simple.

I don't see how this is remotely the case. The word "Pharisee" does not mean, signify or connnote "Jew." It connotes a religious person who is more interested in Law than God's Love. The connotation is not "jewish person."

Do the tannites in the Mishna use the word as a slur against Jews when they call them "destroyers of the world" and "Pharisaic plagues"?

The Gospel of Matthew, which features the "woe to the Pharisees" and "you hypocrites" sections, also has "the Jews" calling for Jesus' execution and saying, "his blood be on us and our children."

This is slippery: you are making it sound like those passages are connected. Also, the Pharisees are mentioned throughout the gospels, more negatively in John and Matthew, but also in Luke and Mark as rhetorical foils for Jesus the Nazarene.

Edit: I would be remiss if I did not point out that the Blood Libel passage is specifically not caused by the Pharisees.
Matthew 27:20: But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
The Chief Priests, of course, were the Sadducees.


Their function in the narrative of the Gospel is to show the difference in emphasis between focusing religion on God's love and focusing it on the specific nitty gritty of things which are prohibited, to demonstrate a new order for religion. Coincidentally, this is exactly what I was accusing the religious right of on the last page. David's reading, and yours, that somehow I was saying, "You people who focus on legislating a woman's vagina are a bunch of Jews," literally makes no sense in context.

It connotes a religious person who is more interested in Law than God's Love. The connotation is not "jewish person."

But that is precisely the most common way Christian anti-Judaism is articulated. The idea that the Jews follow "the letter" instead of "the spirit" of the law, or care more about the law than God, is repeated again and again in anti-Jewish Christian literature. If you use a Jew as the symbol of "being more interested in Law than God's Love", you're participating directly in the stream of Christian anti-Judaism.

And the notion that the Pharisees actually cared more about the law than love is false, of course. (I mean, surely some did, but it's a terrible characterization of the movement as a whole.) For the Pharisees and the rabbis, the following of the law is precisely the act of living in accordance with the order God has given the world and in a spirit of love for God. To call that ignoring God's Love is a horrendous mischaracterization of Pharisaic piety and rabbinic piety.

David's reading, and yours, that somehow I was saying, "You people who focus on legislating a woman's vagina are a bunch of Jews," literally makes no sense in context.

I carry no water for the various religious misogynists, but when you use the name of a Jewish group to refer to, as you said, those who are more interested in the Law than God's Love, you are replicating exactly one of the most classic tropes of Christian anti-Judaism and effectively calling them Jewish. You don't mean to use "Jewish" as a negative thing, but it's what your words are doing, in context.

This is slippery: you are making it sound like those passages are connected.

They are. The "woes" to the Pharisees, in a post-70 context, refer to the defeat of the Jewish revolt and the fall of the temple. The "on us and our children" serves the same purpose - to "foreshadow" the defeat of the Jews and the destruction of the temple as the act of God's justice, retribution for their hypocrisy and their crimes.

In the context of the fraught religious competition of the eastern Mediterranean in the 80s and 90s, this may be understandable, but in our context, given the history of Christian anti-Jewish violence, it's the sort of stuff I'd prefer not to carry forward.

They are. The "woes" to the Pharisees, in a post-70 context, refer to the defeat of the Jewish revolt and the fall of the temple. The "on us and our children" serves the same purpose - to "foreshadow" the defeat of the Jews and the destruction of the temple as the act of God's justice, retribution for their hypocrisy and their crimes.

This is just a huge stretch. The pharisees do not appear at any point in Matthew 27. How does Jesus the Nazarene refer to Pharisees in the passage you mention?

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"

The idea of Pharisees being hypocrites is central to the understanding of the word, both as the Nazarene's condemnation, and the tradition of the word being used pejoratively. At no point in the New Testament is the word "Pharisee" connected with the concept of Jews as the other--rather Jesus's teachings about the Pharisees are centralized in the condemnation of the idea of one group of individuals having superior holiness than others.

But that is precisely the most common way Christian anti-Judaism is articulated. The idea that the Jews follow "the letter" instead of "the spirit" of the law, or care more about the law than God, is repeated again and again in anti-Jewish Christian literature. If you use a Jew as the symbol of "being more interested in Law than God's Love", you're participating directly in the stream of Christian anti-Judaism.

Uh, most Christian anti-Judaisim is articulated in the lack of a religious prohibition against moneylending. The point of the word being used as a pejorative is not to draw attention to the "Jewishness" of a person, but their hypocrisy and lack of love. When I used the word as a pejorative, I was not referencing the actual historical concept of a religious sect, but rather their appearance as a rhetorical foil in a text--very similarly to how I would use the word "Sophist" in a discussion with a Classicist who was arguing disingenuously.

In the context of the fraught religious competition of the eastern Mediterranean in the 80s and 90s, this may be understandable, but in our context, given the history of Christian anti-Jewish violence, it's the sort of stuff I'd prefer not to carry forward.

Pharisee has never been used as a term against Jews. Not in the historical tradition or today. It just hasn't been. There are a lot of slurs against Jews, but Pharisee has not been among them. It has a well-understood meaning that is not ethnic or religious in nature.

Uh, most Christian anti-Judaisim is articulated in the lack of a religious prohibition against moneylending.

I'm guessing from this statement that you haven't done any reading on this topic. I'd recommend, among others, Frederickson and Reinhartz, Jesus, Judaism, and Christian anti-Judiasm and Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism.

I don't really like quoting it, but Martin Luther's On the Jews and their Lies continually makes the claim that the Jews mistake the outer work for the inner truth. It's perhaps the oldest trope of Christian anti-Judaism. This is one of the less ugly passages from Luther on the Jews and the law:

We proceeded to separate the word and faith from the sacrament (that is, from God and his ultimate purpose) and converted it into a mere *opus legis*, a work of the law, or as the papists call it, an *opus operatum* — merely a human work which the priests offered to God and the laity performed as a work of obedience as often as they received it. What is left of the sacrament? Only the empty husk, the mere ceremony, *opus vanum,* divested of everything divine. Yes, it is a hideous abomination in which we perverted God's truth into lies and worshiped the veritable calf of Aaron. Therefore God also delivered us into all sorts of terrible blindness and innumerable false doctrines, and, furthermore, he permitted Muhammad and the pope together with all devils to come upon us.

The people of Israel fared similarly. They always divorced circumcision as an *opus operatum,* their own work, from the word of God, and persecuted all the prophets through whom God wished to speak with them, according to the terms on which circumcision was instituted. Yet despite this, they constantly and proudly boasted of being God's people by virtue of their circumcision. Thus they are in conflict with God. God wants them to hear him and to observe circumcision properly and fully; but they refuse and insist that God respect their work of circumcision, that is, half of circumcision, indeed, the husk of circumcision. God, in turn, refuses to do this; and so they move farther and farther apart, and it is impossible to reunite or reconcile them.

I could produce innumerable passages like this. The claim that Jews follow the Law and lose God's Love couldn't be more deeply embedded in the tradition of Christian anti-Judaism. Using the name of a Jewish group to embody that particular characteristic is anti-Jewish because it derives from this history.

The idea of Pharisees being hypocrites is central to the understanding of the word, both as the Nazarene's condemnation, and the tradition of the word being used pejoratively.

Yes, and the precise hypocrisy of which they're accused - which is simply an inaccurate accusation in its historical context - is the "hypocrisy" cited above in Luther and reproduced again and again in Christian anti-Jewish literature.

One more angle on this, then to bed.

It was not a bad thing to be a Pharisee. Lots of Jews who identify with the rabbinic tradition likewise identify themselves as the inheritors of the Pharisees or the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees. Given this, it's a bad idea to use "Pharisee" as a slur for the same basic reason (sort of once removed) that it's bad to say "that's so gay" when you think something is dumb.

I could produce innumerable passages like this. The claim that Jews follow the Law and lose God's Love couldn't be more deeply embedded in the tradition of Christian anti-Judaism. Using the name of a Jewish group to embody that particular characteristic is anti-Jewish because it derives from this history.

That's not the source of the anti-Judaisim. I mean, it just isn't. Blood Libel isn't motivated by a belief that the Jews follow the Law. The belief in Deicide isn't rooted in Martin Luther. The fact that Jews in Europe were small minorities who lent money for interest goes a lot further to explain pogroms than textual criticism. When people say that they \"##### someone down" they aren't referring to a focus on dietary restrictions rather than God's love.

And nobody says "Pharisee" to mean "Jew." It just isn't what the word means.

Can Romney secure enough delegates before the convention?

@265 I think the super delegates throw it to Romney if it gets close. The gas prices make Obama look vulnerable now, Romney probably has a punchers' chance straight up. I can't see Santorum winning a General Election [wishcast?]

That's not the source of the anti-Judaisim. I mean, it just isn't. Blood Libel isn't motivated by a belief that the Jews follow the Law. The belief in Deicide isn't rooted in Martin Luther. The fact that Jews in Europe were small minorities who lent money for interest goes a lot further to explain pogroms than textual criticism. When people say that they \"##### someone down" they aren't referring to a focus on dietary restrictions rather than God's love.

Though the argument wasn't over what was the source of, and motivation for, anti-semitism, but whether love for the law over God was a part of the language of anti-semitism.

I could produce innumerable passages like this. The claim that Jews follow the Law and lose God's Love couldn't be more deeply embedded in the tradition of Christian anti-Judaism.

MCoA, while I don't agree with tshipman's position at all on what started this, I have to say that I think yours - and Greg(U)K's - statements discount much if not all of what occurs on the ground with anti-semitism. Common, regular, every day anti-semitism that everyone is exposed to comes out in phrases like "Bastard jew'd me on the bill" and "my uncle is a real jew when it comes to paying for hotels." It seems to have little to do with "my uncle really loves the law over God when it comes to paying for hotels."

I want to make it clear that I agree that what you guys say is part of the problem, but isn't how it is manifested and expressed to the majority; and probably really isn't what keeps it going as much as the JEWS AND MONEY sentiment.

Regarding #267, I have simply never heard that expressed as part of the problem. As MCoA mentioned, maybe I haven't read enough about it, but I really think the effect is negligible.

Regarding #267, I have simply never heard that expressed as part of the problem. As MCoA mentioned, maybe I haven't read enough about it, but I really think the effect is negligible.

To be clearer, I don't hear in the world around me that it is as deeply embedded as MCoA states. Which doesn't, of course, make it any better or less present.

Lassus, theological anti-semitism in the U.S. in the past several decades has been confined to the fringe (witness, e.g., changes to the Catholic liturgy post Vatican II), and in any case people "on the ground" are not theologians to begin with. But that doesn't mean that we can ignore the theological origins of Christian anti-semitism. (Which do not arise from the Jewish association with medieval moneylending, as tshipman portrays it; that reverses cause and effect. Jews were moneylenders because they were restricted from most occupations because of anti-semitism. Christian persecution of Jews long predates that.)

Regarding #267, I have simply never heard that expressed as part of the problem. As MCoA mentioned, maybe I haven't read enough about it, but I really think the effect is negligible.

I'm not sure I understand your point here; the law/love dichotomy was the origin of the term Pharisee as a slur. (Which, contrary to the bizarre claim that it doesn't connote Jews, actually denotes Jews.) It wasn't because Pharisees were perceived as cheap.

Pharisee has never been used as a term against Jews. Not in the historical tradition or today. It just hasn't been. There are a lot of slurs against Jews, but Pharisee has not been among them. It has a well-understood meaning that is not ethnic or religious in nature.

Hmm, not sure about this. It would be an interesting survey.

Background: I am historically literate, maybe not so much religious history literate. Raised Roman Catholic, married a mostly non-observant Jew. We had our kids Bar Mitzvahed, so for 5 years I was involved often in Jewish religious exercises. Those are the taints in my understanding.

To me, the word Pharisee implies a particular kind of Jew. A money-loving Jew, to be precise.

Re 271
I have never ever, until today heard a connection between pharisee and "money loving new" I have always heard it in the context of a religious hypocrite who is outwardly faithful but is in reality is either not a true believer or who simply does not understand the a follow the letter but not spirit kind of thing. And it has almost always been applied to christians


Edit living in NYC I could see it being applied to ultra orthodox jews.

Edit 2 I could see it being applied to self professed fundamentalists of any religion

I have never ever, until today heard a connection between pharisee and "money loving new" I have always heard it in the context of a religious hypocrite who is outwardly faithful but is in reality is either not a true believer or who simply does not understand the a follow the letter but not spirit kind of thing. And it has almost always been applied to christians

I've never heard it as a slur for Jews, either.

But as a slur for Christians, it's effectively calling someone a Jew, drawing on this long history of theological Christian anti-Judaism. Read the Luther passage (or if you want to turn your stomach, the whole treatise linked) - which is entirely representative of a long-standing Christian discourse - and you can see how the attack on the "outwardly faithful but in reality not a true believer" is a classic trope of Christian anti-Judaism.

[272] Maybe I conflated the money lenders in the Temple with the Pharisees. I stopped attending church when I was 15, so I may have many distorted childhood memories of the religious teachings I received.

But that doesn't mean that we can ignore the theological origins of Christian anti-semitism. (Which do not arise from the Jewish association with medieval moneylending, as tshipman portrays it; that reverses cause and effect. Jews were moneylenders because they were restricted from most occupations because of anti-semitism. Christian persecution of Jews long predates that.)

I don't disagree with a word of this. I don't think it should be ignored. I just don't think it is what primarily drives anti-semitism any more. (In America - my experience abroad is limited at best) I'd have to do more research, but I'd say even "slightly" is an oversell.


I'm not sure I understand your point here; the law/love dichotomy was the origin of the term Pharisee as a slur. (Which, contrary to the bizarre claim that it doesn't connote Jews, actually denotes Jews.) It wasn't because Pharisees were perceived as cheap.

I agree Pharisee is a slur. (I almost typoed "slut". Whoops.) I think that anti-semitism is primarily secular at this point, and Pharisee is a slur that the majority of antisemites are unaware of. Giving tshipman the benefit of the doubt, I'd probably also say that an unexamined use of "Pharisee" is not an indication of conscious anti-semitism. Where tshipman or anyone wants to go with said knowledge is another story, certainly.

But as a slur for Christians, it's effectively calling someone a Jew, drawing on this long history of theological Christian anti-Judaism. Read the Luther passage (or if you want to turn your stomach, the whole treatise linked) - which is entirely representative of a long-standing Christian discourse - and you can see how the attack on the "outwardly faithful but in reality not a true believer" is a classic trope of Christian anti-Judaism.

Exactly. And the fact that it's directed at Christians doesn't mean it isn't anti-Jewish. It's saying, "You're bad because you act like a Jew."

I agree Pharisee is a slur. (I almost typoed "slut". Whoops.) I think that anti-semitism is primarily secular at this point, and Pharisee is a slur that the majority of antisemites are unaware of. Giving tshipman the benefit of the doubt, I'd probably also say that an unexamined use of "Pharisee" is not an indication of conscious anti-semitism. Where tshipman or anyone wants to go with said knowledge is another story, certainly.

To be clear, at no point did I suggest that tshipman was consciously or unconsciously anti-Semitic. As I said early in this discussion, I think most people think of Pharisees as an extinct group, not realizing that virtually all of modern Judaism is "Pharisaical."

Giving tshipman the benefit of the doubt, I'd probably also say that an unexamined use of "Pharisee" is not an indication of conscious anti-semitism.

To be clear, I do not mean to be accusing anyone of bigotry in their hearts.

The languages of anti-Semitism and theological Christian anti-Judaism (which are of course closely linked) have seeped into our society in a variety of troubling ways. The use of "Pharisee" as a slur is one of these, and I assume that lots of people haven't stopped to reflect on it.

Doesn't it seem prima facie troubling to use the name of a Jewish group as a slur?

EDIT: To be clear,...To be clear,... sometimes one fears one is more like David Nieporent than unlike.

This is a fascinating discussion. I didn't know 90% of the history, and I'm Jewish. From my fairly ignorant perspective, I've always thought of Pharisee as a term for a type of Jew during the time of Christ, and potentially a slur when used by a non-Jew to describe a Jew. So I have to agree with MCA on this point (but also agree that tshipman was not using it consciously as a slur in any way, shape, or form).

Yeah, I didn't think either of you were saying tshipman was, or even implying it. That was probably pretty poorly worded on my part, sorry. And stupid, as it distracts from my main disagreement.

Anybody here read Lamb by Christopher Moore? It's a lighthearted, frequently vulgar, comedy novel about the life of Jesus. Based on the Amazon reviews, devout Christians either love it or hate it, but more love it. I thought it was hilarious, but I'm not a Christian*

Anyway, came to mind because Pharisees (and Sadducees) are absolutely antagonists in the book, though I'm guessing that since it's based on the gospels that's kind of accurate in context.

* Though not not-Christian enough to get opted-out of the Bible school class that was held (in place of regular class time) in the trailer right beside my elementary school. So I know a bit about my birth-religion, though nothing compared to the people in this thread. Amusingly, in the context of this discussion, the only realistic way out of Bible class (i.e. without severe social stigma) was to be Jewish. That would get you a somewhat less severe stigmatization.

To be clearer, I don't hear in the world around me that it is as deeply embedded as MCoA states. Which doesn't, of course, make it any better or less present.

I think you and I are on the same page Lassus. In every day anti-semitism I've rarely heard the Law over God thing. I think MCoA makes a convincing argument that historically it has been a part of the discussion. I suppose we can quibble about the relevance of Martin Luther's anti-Jewish tract to modern society (not really the you and I "we" but the anybody in the pesent day "we"), but as a student of history I perhaps place more emphasis than is required on these things.

In other words, point taken, and agreed with.

Can Romney secure enough delegates before the convention?

Was listening to Major Garret from the National Journal -- and he doesn't think Romney does. He wanted to be clear in differentiating between a brokered convention, a negotiated convention, and a true floor fight convention -- but he thinks it has become mathematically impossible for Romney to actually clinch the nomination based on pure delegate counting. He thinks Romney will still have a clear, even commanding lead, but that he's going to have to give something to someone to get over the top.

That sounds about right to me... except, the more I read on right-leaning blogs (RedState, et al) - for whatever those folks have a say, they seem to be digging in their heels about a negotiated/brokered/whatever convention yielding a nominee other than Romney.

FWIW - One thing I actually agree with Erik Erickson about... Team Romney is just absolutely atrocious at the expectations game. Santorum still has a nearly impossible uphill climb, and really -- AL & MS were quite nearly a 3-way tie -- but by essentially claiming that they had Santorum on the ropes, and saying point blank they were gonna win Mississippi, all they managed to do is wrap up Santorum's most preferred narrative with a bow. They may have Axelrodian delegate counting skills, but Team Romney seems to have Mark Pennian narrative skills...

Doesn't it seem prima facie troubling to use the name of a Jewish group as a slur?

The word's primary identity isn't Jewish--it's as a narrative foil in a historical text (which is the same context the word was used in). It has a clear meaning that is not defined by religion, but rather by action and outlook.

But as a slur for Christians, it's effectively calling someone a Jew, drawing on this long history of theological Christian anti-Judaism.

Again, I disagree, this is just a massive stretch. It refers to someone acting like a narrative foil in a historical text.
I agree that the word would have troubling connotations if used against someone who was actually Jewish (due to the loaded history and the context of its use in the NT).

IMO: the word Pharisee is not substantively different than Sophist.

Anybody here read Lamb by Christopher Moore? It's a lighthearted, frequently vulgar, comedy novel about the life of Jesus. Based on the Amazon reviews, devout Christians either love it or hate it, but more love it. I thought it was hilarious, but I'm not a Christian*

Gave it to my mom, a devout Roman Catholic (had her first marriage anulled, doesn't miss mass, goes to confession, doesn't consider gays sinful) and she adored it. I'd be curious to know what snapper thought, if he could even finish it.

Can Romney secure enough delegates before the convention?

So, I have no idea about this, so I'm asking sincerely: if no one is elected on the first ballot at the convention are the delegates still obligated to vote for who the primary or caucus chose? That is, if no one wins on the first ballot could the eventual nominee then be, literally, anyone?

Gave it to my mom, a devout Roman Catholic (had her first marriage anulled, doesn't miss mass, goes to confession, doesn't consider gays sinful) and she adored it. I'd be curious to know what snapper thought, if he could even finish it.

I don't really read fiction or humor, so I'd be unlikely to read it.

So, I have no idea about this, so I'm asking sincerely: if no one is elected on the first ballot at the convention are the delegates still obligated to vote for who the primary or caucus chose? That is, if no one wins on the first ballot could the eventual nominee then be, literally, anyone?

Rules vary by state, but most are pledged for only one, or two ballots.

Was listening to Major Garret from the National Journal -- and he doesn't think Romney does. He wanted to be clear in differentiating between a brokered convention, a negotiated convention, and a true floor fight convention -- but he thinks it has become mathematically impossible for Romney to actually clinch the nomination based on pure delegate counting. He thinks Romney will still have a clear, even commanding lead, but that he's going to have to give something to someone to get over the top.

That sounds about right to me... except, the more I read on right-leaning blogs (RedState, et al) - for whatever those folks have a say, they seem to be digging in their heels about a negotiated/brokered/whatever convention yielding a nominee other than Romney.

And even if the carnivores eventually relent and accept Romney, the concessions that they'll almost certainly squeeze out of him in return for their endorsement are only going to give the Democrats even more ammunition to use against him with moderates and independents in the general election. Is there a single voting bloc outside the Republicans' preexisting base that Romney won't wind up alienating at some point along the way? Obama may not be popular and gas prices may be high, but you still can't beat something with nothing.

but you still can't beat something with nothing.

Actually, the Republicans would beat Obama if they could run "generic Republican to be determined later" on the ballot.

The problem is that Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are less than nothing. They're actively bad candidates.

Was listening to Major Garret from the National Journal -- and he doesn't think Romney does. He wanted to be clear in differentiating between a brokered convention, a negotiated convention, and a true floor fight convention -- but he thinks it has become mathematically impossible for Romney to actually clinch the nomination based on pure delegate counting.

Not true, currently Romney has 52.8% of the delegates awarded to date, IF that rate holds he will clinch during the June 5 Primaries- which include NJ and Calif- both winner take all- if he doesn't crater, if he's still perceived as the front runner/eventual winner, he will take those two states, all their delegates, and "clinch" on June 5.

It's Santorum and Gingrich who "can't" win before the convention, but what they still can do is keep Romney from winning.

The actively bad candidates have so besmirched the brand that even "generic Republican" would have a bad time. Actually, I'm not sure that the candidates are as frightening as the folks they feel they have to pander to. Makes me wonder whether someone like Huntsman could have stuck around by embracing a message of "I represent the sane old-fashioned Republicans." Not a majority position but perhaps, but bigger share of the vote than that gained by the least successful panderer.

Just a thought experiment. I'm a Democrat myself.

The problem is that Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are less than nothing. They're actively bad candidates.

It's amazing, isn't it? How on earth did we get candidates like this?

It's amazing, isn't it? How on earth did we get candidates like this?

The country's getting dumber by the day, especially the Red States. There's not a polite way to put it.

Nate Silver had a pretty good exposition on the breakdown of GOP delegate types back before the MI/AZ contests here...

This is, I think, one significant problem Romney will have if he doesn't cross the threshold outright -- a lot of those loose/unbound delegates he's technically won... there's really no 'penalty' that they'll have to pay for bailing on Mitt.

If it were Newt or Rick in the lead - I don't think you could say the same - Rick, and perhaps to a lesser extent, Newt, evoke some strong feelings and attachment among the GOP base. Mitt just really doesn't. Sure, there are probably some GOP powerbrokers that would hold a grudge and look with great consternation on anyone bailing on Mitt - but those folks just aren't going to be able to publicly make them pay a price. Mitt's position is precarious, I think, precisely because he has really no choice but to do what he's doing... basically play the math, and move forward with accountant-like delegate counting.

Not true, currently Romney has 52.8% of the delegates awarded to date, IF that rate holds he will clinch during the June 5 Primaries- which include NJ and Calif- both winner take all- if he doesn't crater, if he's still perceived as the front runner/eventual winner, he will take those two states, all their delegates, and "clinch" on June 5.

It's Santorum and Gingrich who "can't" win before the convention, but what they still can do is keep Romney from winning.

Yes - but his problem is that his percentage of "needs to win remaining" keeps going up. Just reading through redstate, freerepublic, et al -- the consternation is growing that Romney's delegate lead is being built on 'blue states' that he'll never win.

I agree - there's a near mathematical impossibility of Santorum and especially Gingrich winning... but I also think that if I'm Santorum, keeping Romney from clinching might be all I need. I'm just not seeing the GOP base having a whole lot of outrage if Mitt goes into the convention with 1100 delegates, but the nod ends up going to Santorum. At minimum, I guess -- if I were a GOP strategist -- I'd be a lot more worried about having to 'crown' Romney via superdelegates and such than I would crowning even a distant-2nd place Santorum (especially if say... even more distant 3rd place Gingrich decides to complete the kamikaze and bless his delegates backing Santorum).

I suppose at that point - again wearing a GOP strategist hat - I have to start doing some math and statistics... will I lose more in GE independents and moderates by letting Santorum have it, or, do I lose more of the base (or at least, more of the base enthusiasm) by blessing Romney.

I think that fortunately for the GOP - they can probably just take a late-summer lay of the land... If the economy continues strengthening and it's looking like a longshot to beat Obama no matter who's atop the ticket, then I think I might be tempted to just say "fine, have your Santorum".

I don't get the CW that holds that the GOP would suffer downballot with an accepted base candidate like Gingrich or Santorum atop the ticket. I suppose fundraising might suffer, but I would think that if I'm writing off the WH and focusing on holding the House and pulling out the Senate - I'd want my base as fired up as absolutely possible.

Maybe it's a result of four years of GWB rhetoric--the people who bought what he was selling might now be buying the similar statements of these new candidates. They might be used to uncompromising, warmongering, class-free wacko rhetoric.

FWIW - and I'd never in a million years vote for him for even dog catcher - I don't know that Santorum is a "bad candidate".

Oh sure - I think he's got some positions, obviously on some social issues - that make him close to unelectable, but purely from the generic candidate standpoint, I think Santorum tends to 'connect' relatively well. Unfortunately, I think he generally 'connects' with voters already predisposed to connect with a socon - but that does include a fair number of blue collar voters who may not be all that partisan.

The guy got swamped in 2006, but he did win a PA statewide election and IIRC, his former House district was at least mildly swingy... If he had better messaging people to keep him from scaring the suburban soccer moms, I could see him being at least somewhat formidable.

Oh sure - I think he's got some positions, obviously on some social issues - that make him close to unelectable, but purely from the generic candidate standpoint, I think Santorum tends to 'connect' relatively well. Unfortunately, I think he generally 'connects' with voters already predisposed to connect with a socon - but that does include a fair number of blue collar voters who may not be all that partisan.

His problem is that he takes his social issue positions and states them in the most offensive way possible.

He could be a relatively attractive candidate if he could state his Catholic beliefs in a sympathetic way. Instead he comes across as a zealot.

You can be staunchly pro-life and not be offensive to the reasonable 75% of the population. The extreme 25% will always hate you, but they had 63 other issues that prevent them from voting for you anyway.

I mean Cardinals O'Connor and Dolan can express the same views Santorum has without offending reasonable people who feel the other way.

The country's getting dumber by the day, especially the Red States. There's not a polite way to put it.

########. The Blue States are just as dumb, with their beliefs that you can give everyone all the goodies in the world and "the government" can magically pay for it, and the idea that the US is the villain on the int'l scene, and if we just apologize everyone will love us.

It's not like Obama, and Biden, and Kerry and Gore are good leaders either. You may agree with them on most things, but objectively, they're all terrible. Just like I may agree with Bush and Romney and Gingrich and Santorum on most things, I can still say they're bad leaders.

The process has become so poisoned, and so draining, that only the most single mindedly ambitious power-seekers are willing to put themselves and their families through it.

The guy got swamped in 2006, but he did win a PA statewide election

Pennsylvania has, ahem, interesting demographics. A large chunk of the populace is like the rest of the Northeast,and a large chunk is ahem, Alabama.

He won (barely) in 1994 (the year of the Gingrich revolution) and in 2000 (by a little better margin- even though Penn went for Gore) He got crushed in 2006, a Demo wave year...