Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's reply-pstill burning ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 20:53:36

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ed and friends-histrclheyt Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 18:56:08

> >...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...
> >others, can post here even more insults to Judaism and Jews with impunity
> Are you suggesting no one should be able to mention that part of the Bible for fear of inciting anti-Semitism? I do not see any evidence that Judaism was insulted. That is entirely your interpretation, which appears to be profoundly skewed in the direction of seeing insults where none exist.
> No doubt... some Jews do love money. Some Christians love money too. Some Muslims love money. Some non-believers love money. Jesus was, presumably, suggesting that it is not a good thing to love money. Although this part of the Bible may have been used to incite hatred against Jews at some points in time, I see no evidence whatsoever that that applies in this instance.
> >could allow some readers to feel that Judaism is being insulted here as being supportive
> That would be a stretch...
> >in Mr. Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole and arouse hatred toward the Jews
> I seriously doubt Dr. Bob would find it acceptable to arouse hatred against anyone. Although I cannot speak for him, the issue seems to be that Dr. Bob simply doesn't believe that any hatred was aroused. I would agree with that sentiment.

You cited the statement in question:
[...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...].
Then you wrote,[...are you suggesting that no one should be able to mention that part of the Bible for fear of inciting anti-Semitism?
Let there be no misunderstanding here. The passage in the Bible is not posted. It is the poster's interpretation of the passage that is in question here. This means that readers that know of the passage, (actually there is more than one passage) are one set of readers, and there are those that search for the passage and examine it, and there are readers that are ignorant of the passage along with other subsets of readers.
As to if one could cite the passage here without arousing anti-Semitic feelings, that could depend on the context of the citation being used and for what purpose as it could be seen. Here, the poster writes about {*their* love for money}. The people could be the Jews to the subset of readers that know of the passage that the poster says to think of involving the money changers. But what the poster writes is {their love for money when so many went without}. It is that statement by the poster that readers could see as supportive and will be good in Mr. Hsiung's thinking for the community as a whole because it stands un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung. It is how Jews could be depicted by the statement in the minds of a subset of readers that think the people in question are Jews.
The passage does not use that language to say that Jesus was disgusted at their love for money. That is what the poster wrote and got it from some place, and many Christiandom groups purport that what the poster wrote is in their doctrines and depict Jews as in the following..
see: [ admin, 428781 ]
The statement could mean to a subset of readers that the people in the subset of {their}, in {their love for money,} are being shown in contempt and insulting their character as the poster writes that {*Jesus* was disgusted at their love for money} That part being allowed to be seen here as supportive could arouse anti-Semitic feelings to those readers that think that the people in the set of {their}, in {their love for money}, were Jews. That could be defaming to Jews and insulting to Jews to attribute the intent of those Jews to be motivated by the love for money. The passage could lead to stereotyping Jews as *Jesus* is said by the poster to be disgusted at *their* love for money, even though the passage does not contain that language.
I am prevented from posting my repudiation of the statement in the manner that I think could save lives here, due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. But the poster can post his interpretation of the passage, that IMHO could cost the lives of some readers here and the lives of innocent Jews throughout the world that could become victims of anti-Semitic terrorists that could see the statement as by a psychiatrist that it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to have it seen as civil. Jewish centers and temples could be attacked. You see, one match can start a forest fire. The statement by the poster in question could be thought by some to be a flame. And the flame could induce embers that spread like the wind through the internet to homes all over the world. I see more than that in the poster's post. For he says that justice is somehow involved in the statement in question. Hummmmmmmmmmmm




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:1075295