Kittypie070: HEY TATS COULD YOU ADDRESS THE WAY GLENN BECK IS INSULTING JEWS

I'm not sure he intended to directly insult Jews, I think he was getting a bit emotional and just regurgitating theological knowledge and so on.

You could call Glenn Beck many things, but anti-semite is definitely not one of them

mikosity: Tatsuma can throw down on Judaism. Always makes me go read some Torah.

Cheers

What's more important: why does 80% of the world believe in one or the other variant of bronze age middle eastern bullshiat and is willing to kill and die for it?

impaler: jmaster306: I made it as far as 3 min into the clip before I had to turn it off. He was building a bizarre straw man argument about the left wanting to kill "cracker babies" because they would become oppressors. Good lord, what sort of person actually takes Beck seriously?

Our parents.

This. I'm still not sure if it's a generational thing or if getting old really makes you that stupid.

heap: Tatsuma: but they weren't still so far out the pale that they were downright considered idol worshipers.

don't get too high and mighty, ya'll have some answering to do over the whole no-bacon thing.

jesus died for our BLTs.

Annnnnnnnd onto my fav's list.

Didn't listen to TFA, because it's Beck. Not gonna listen, wouldn't be prudent.

Another farker used what I call the "Palin Yardstick". Utilizing moron tv / radio shills ( eg Beck) as a metric for determining when another person is an absolute shiate-for-brains is a very simple process.

When I meet a person for the first time and am trying to glean their intellectual capacity, I often ask about their opinions of Palinesque figureheads. It's foolproof.

Tatsuma: It's ok for the welfare of the city, not to be used as someone's personal coffer. There's a reason why Jews rioted and scores were killed during the repression.

From what I read, he couldn't have gotten to those funds without the cooperation of the Jewish Priests (elders?). Were he to attempt to it would have meant full on war in the province. Non believers weren't allowed to set foot in there, and to do so would have been a greater sacrilege than any other of which he is accused. Also, that aqueduct was ordered by Herod the Great years prior and it seems reasonable to me to use Judean monies to fund public works projects which would benefit Judeans.

Further, the soldiers who were sent to hide amongst the Jews were probably locally drawn Samarians as it is unlikely that any Italian troops would not have stood out. With that consideration, it's not beyond belief to consider that the Samarians themselves may have gone overboard in following their orders. There were high levels of social, religious and economic tension between they and Orthodox Jews at the time and Roman military history is littered with examples of locally drawn auxiliary troops being incredibly difficult to control.

Tatsuma: No, the bloodthirsty description I used was in relation with the thousands of Jews he crucified (around 6,000 if I remember correctly, but I could be wrong it's been a while) and the incitement in cities, plus the misuse of the Temple's treasury for his own purposes. Oh, and attempting to smuggle idols inside the Temple to incite the population.

Nothing I have ever read said anything about Pilate crucifying 6,000 Jews, or any huge number of Jews. That 6,000 number plus crucifixion you are probably remembering from Crassus, who crucified 6,000 slaves at the end of the slave revolt led by Spartacus. If the "idols" to which you are referring are the gilded shields, it is alleged to be smuggling because it was done at night, but the march to Jerusalem from Caesaria would take 3 days to march, and if one left Caesaria in the early morning they would arrive at night on the third day. These soldiers he sent were most likely Italian cohorts who, being new to the region, were unaware that this was blasphemy to the Jews. Once Pilate heard of the civil unrest, he sent messengers back and forth to gain an account of the situation and according to Josephus six days later (three to get to Jerusalem, three to get back) he told the Jews in Caesaria that he would order the shields taken down.

The Romans killed him because he was an agitator. I mean, the Romans had been running an empire for a long time, and they knew that any man getting a following can start a revolt.

/aside from that, Jesus was a Jew.

IrateShadow: gaslight: I've never, ever understood the blame the Jews for killing Jesus bit.

It was the Wops who did him in, no?

It's kinda like the NRA's "guns don't kill people" schtick. The Romans would have left Jesus alone, and hell, Pilate even tried to let him off, but those lousy Jews were having none of it.

Pretty sure it was the pharisees specifically, not "the jews" in general. But yeah, since the only reason christianity was ever more than another undistinguishable sand religion was that it was picked up by some Roman patricians, the story was fairly sympathetic to imperial officials (well, Herod aside).

Kittypie070: Wow. How you can be that blind is beyond me.

I dare you to disregard this.(popsy)

I'm not being blind. I've seen the man talk enough about Jews and Israel to be sure that he isn't an anti-semite.

As for the second link, it's a bit of a trumped-up controversy. He was sent a book by a listener, didn't know who the author was, and the book itself wasn't anti-semitic, and he praised it on air. Later, when he learned about the author's leanings, he came out, apologized and said he was unaware of that, pointing out that the anti-semitism of the author isn't reflected in that particular book.

Does he go too far when lambasting what he sees as the Left, and ended up with egg on his face because of it? Yes, absolutely. Is he a Nazi sympathizer? Of course not.

Tatsuma: Calling yourself the Son of G-d is not the same, and would not have elicited any such reaction from the Jews around then. Heck, walk into a synagogue today and say that you are 'Ben Elokim', and well, people will shrug and say 'So are we'.

"I and my Father are one."

John 10:30

Curse you for making me look that up.

As to the generational thing, look, there's no point in trying to pretend the Judaism is a cutesy wootsy lovey dovey religion like Christianity. Going back to its origins it's a tough, unforgiving faith that values justice over love. The seven generation curse was for real. Since the Diaspora it's been interpreted out the yin yang, but it's still part of our heritage and Judaism's refusal to compromise on this and other matters is both our burden and our glory--and why the faith still exists.

As to the supernatural powers of the Messiah, I suppose that's a personal interpretation, but a human being who could be both a unbeatable conqueror and the instituter of paradise on earth--well, Moses is as close as we get to someone with those attributes, he had supernatural powers (staffs to serpents anyone?), and even he didn't make the grade as Messiah. And please don't split hairs with me about Moses. Having a direct line to God is supernatural power in my book.

bighasbeen: From what I read, he couldn't have gotten to those funds without the cooperation of the Jewish Priests (elders?). Were he to attempt to it would have meant full on war in the province. Non believers weren't allowed to set foot in there, and to do so would have been a greater sacrilege than any other of which he is accused. Also, that aqueduct was ordered by Herod the Great years prior and it seems reasonable to me to use Judean monies to fund public works projects which would benefit Judeans.

The problem was not that he used those funds, it's that he was allowed to use a certain portion of it (what is considered extraneous) but used way too much and actually used funds that were sacred and dedicated, prompting Jews to protest.

There is no way he did that while completely unaware of what would happen.

bighasbeen: Further, the soldiers who were sent to hide amongst the Jews were probably locally drawn Samarians as it is unlikely that any Italian troops would not have stood out. With that consideration, it's not beyond belief to consider that the Samarians themselves may have gone overboard in following their orders. There were high levels of social, religious and economic tension between they and Orthodox Jews at the time and Roman military history is littered with examples of locally drawn auxiliary troops being incredibly difficult to control.

This is speculation, and either way he did a provocative action, sent troops hidden inside the Jewish mobs, and used them to inflict severe blows on the local population who had good reasons to act the way they were behaving.

bighasbeen: Nothing I have ever read said anything about Pilate crucifying 6,000 Jews, or any huge number of Jews. That 6,000 number plus crucifixion you are probably remembering from Crassus, who crucified 6,000 slaves at the end of the slave revolt led by Spartacus.

You might be right about Crassus, but Pontius Pilate did have a predilection for crucifixion, and used it liberally on those he considered as fomenters of revolt against Rome, that I am sure of.

As I said, it's been years, but that particular subject is ingrained in my brain (mostly because of very vivid texts describing crucifixion and its effects on the body)

Jesus is not dead. The Son of the Lord is alive in all your hearts.

/except for you farkin' heathens.

Oops. Justice over mercy, I should have said.

bighasbeen: oh_please: ignite ice: I think Glenn Beck is actually a troll. This is how I rationalize it anyway. I just can't accept it any other way.

DUH. IT kills me that everyone gets all WHGARRBBBL about Beck. He's the "obvious troll is obvious" and y'all keep taking the bait.

"I could give a flying crap about the political process. We're an entertainment company."

-Glenn Beck, Forbes Magazine, April 26, 2010

The problem is there are wayyyyyy to many people who don't realize this and so when Glenn Beck speaks it's taken as gospel.

Jim_Callahan: Pretty sure it was the pharisees specifically, not "the jews" in general.

The Pharisees WERE 'the Jews"

clambam: "I and my Father are one."

John 10:30

Then yeah, that would be problematic, but unless he said that while using the actual name of G-d in Hebrew, he couldn't possibly be put to death for blasphemy

clambam: Curse you for making me look that up.

Careful with these words, please.

clambam: As to the generational thing, look, there's no point in trying to pretend the Judaism is a cutesy wootsy lovey dovey religion like Christianity. Going back to its origins it's a tough, unforgiving faith that values justice over love. The seven generation curse was for real. Since the Diaspora it's been interpreted out the yin yang, but it's still part of our heritage and Judaism's refusal to compromise on this and other matters is both our burden and our glory--and why the faith still exists.

It's not true. First of all, as I said, it's three or four generations, and even in the text itself it shows that it's the case (that redemption = annulment of the curse), especially in Neviim (Melachim alef or beis specifically) and Kesuvim (Divrei HaYomim).

Even in the Mishnah, for example, it says (I paraphrase): 'When the text calls for 'an eye for an eye', does it mean we gouge an eye for another eye? Rabbi answers: G-d forbid! It has never meant that, it means that an eye will be repaid by the monetary value of an eye)'.

That's 2,000 years ago. It's not like a spirit of liberalism came over them, never at any point did Jews pluck eyes in order to repay for plucked eyes.

clambam: As to the supernatural powers of the Messiah, I suppose that's a personal interpretation

That goes against classical Judaism

clambam: Having a direct line to God is supernatural power in my book.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. If G-d does miracles on your behalf, it doesn't mean that you have supernatural powers, it means that you're righteous and you've got the Big Guy in your corner

Kittypie070: Deliberately blind and obtuse idiot.

Three idiots in a row? No counterpoint? Don't make me itch for the ignore button.

Well, George Lewis told the Englishman, the Italian and the Jew
"You can't open your mind, boys
To every conceivable point of view"
They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway Five
Judge says to the High Sheriff,
"I want him dead or alive
Either one, I don't care"
High water everywhere

Techhell: Also, weren't Jews and Christians pretty much rivals? Somewhat analogous to Catholics and Protestants (or Sunni and Shia) for the early part of Christianity? I can see fighting for the same group of worshippers, and fighting dirty.

No not at all, the first xians were fully Jewish. They'd go to synagogue, pray 3 times a day, eat kosher meat, do everything that regular mainstream Jews were doing, but they thought that the Messiah had come, and was coming back again.

That was a very problematic belief, but that was not downright heresy.

Problems started with the rise of the non-Jewish segment of Judaism, who entered more and more pagan elements into their movements, while downplaying the Judaic aspect.

This was fought ardently against by the Jewish followers, but they were soon outnumbered. When Jerusalem was destroyed and the center of power of that new religion moved to Damascus (the hotbed of non-Jewish followers), they took over completely and hounded the last remaining Jewish followers who still adhered to Judaism and either killed them, forced them to adapt to their views, or rejected them completely.

So yes, if the disciples of Yoshke had been alive a century or so later, they would have been persecuted and kicked out of the church by the non-Jews who took over. Talk about irony

gaslight: I've never, ever understood the blame the Jews for killing Jesus bit.

It was the Wops who did him in, no?

LMAO! I don't know exactly why this one comment made me laugh so hard, but it did. Kudos man

Kittypie070: you just blew
it all away to defend a known liar and white-trash-panderer
who used to be a booze addled nitwit and is still a two bit
shock jock who fakes weeping with Vicks smeared on the
bags under his eyes.

Gooooooooooosfrabba

Kittypie070: You earned my respect in the Iran threads but you just blew
it all away to defend a known liar and white-trash-panderer
who used to be a booze addled nitwit and is still a two bit
shock jock who fakes weeping with Vicks smeared on the
bags under his eyes.

I has a sad now instead of an angry.

When he says something crazy, I don't defend him. In that particular video linked in TFA, he pretty much espouses the mainstream Xian line.

When he praised that book, I don't believe he was espousing an anti-semite, I think he was just lazy.

Do you want my perspective on what happened with that book? Read this link, that's pretty much it.

I don't want to Beck myself, so I only approve of that post, I never read the rest of that blog.

So basically I just blew the respect you had for me, for what? For not thinking that the man is 100% evil?

I don't think he's evil at all, I think in fact he's perfectly earnest, believes what he spouts, it's just that he's... he's a bit off.

I see him as harmless and an entertainer, mostly.

Kittypie070: You earned my respect in the Iran threads but you just blew
it all away to defend a known liar and white-trash-panderer
who used to be a booze addled nitwit and is still a two bit
shock jock who fakes weeping with Vicks smeared on the
bags under his eyes.

I has a sad now instead of an angry.

:(

There's a difference between saying 'I don't think he's really an antisemite' and 'defending' Glenn Beck. 'Defending' making it sound like nothing more than a partisan slap fight. I'm not Glenn Beck fan myself, but there's no need to twist facts. His dumb comments speak for themselves.

So much of this in political threads, trying to dig into the truth will get the partisan warriors on the defensive.

Tatsuma: Then yeah, that would be problematic, but unless he said that while using the actual name of G-d in Hebrew, he couldn't possibly be put to death for blasphemy

Hair splitting. Hey, I like to do it as much as the next guy, but after a while it becomes self-defeating.

Careful with these words, please.

Lighten up. You know what I meant.

It's not true. First of all, as I said, it's three or four generations, and even in the text itself it shows that it's the case (that redemption = annulment of the curse), especially in Neviim (Melachim alef or beis specifically) and Kesuvim (Divrei HaYomim).

Even in the Mishnah, for example, it says (I paraphrase): 'When the text calls for 'an eye for an eye', does it mean we gouge an eye for another eye? Rabbi answers: G-d forbid! It has never meant that, it means that an eye will be repaid by the monetary value of an eye)'.

That's 2,000 years ago. It's not like a spirit of liberalism came over them, never at any point did Jews pluck eyes in order to repay for plucked eyes.

More hair splitting. My point was that at the time those laws were formulated, 600 years or more before the Mishnah, you bet your ass that an eye was extracted for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

That goes against classical Judaism

We'll just have to agree to disagree. If G-d does miracles on your behalf, it doesn't mean that you have supernatural powers, it means that you're righteous and you've got the Big Guy in your corner

Again, I am not a religious Jew, so I had to look this stuff up:

"When the messiah does come, he will inaugurate the messianic age (sometimes called the Olam Ha-Ba, World to Come). The Tanakh employs the following descriptions about this period:

"* Peace among all nations (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)
"* Perfect harmony and abundance in nature (Isaiah 11:6-9) (but some interpret this as an allegory for peace and prosperity)
"* All Jews return from exile to Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5)
"* Universal acceptance of the Jewish God and Jewish religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; 66:23; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9)
"* No sin or evil; all Israel will obey the commandments (Zephaniah 3:13; Ezekiel 37:24)
"* Reinstatement of the Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-27)"

Perfect harmony and abundance in nature? No sin or evil? Sure, piece of cake for a righteous dude.

Look Tats, I appreciate your coming out swinging against the Jew haters and Israel bashers, but sometimes you come off as smug and tendentious, and it does the cause little good. Lighten up a little and lay off the holier-than-thou shiat. It's annoying.

Throughout history, many sides in many conflicts have tried to twist popular religion to justify their side. Many times, in fact, both sides of the same conflict have done this to the same religion.

Is it any surprise, then, that modern class conflict would also do this? Beck actually has something of a point here in that liberation theology has indeed done this, but he fails to mention its opposite number in the same conflict: prosperity theology. Their core messages are really little more than two slightly different reflections of the same core idea. To wit:

Prosperity: "You're poor because you sin."
Liberation: "You're poor because other people sin."

Both try to establish a causal relationship whereby sin leads to wealth. If anything, mainstream Christian theology posits the reverse: wealth is dangerous because it tends to lead people off the path. But this doesn't lend itself well to class warfare, and so both sides try to twist and reinvent for the sake of their own recruiting.

As for Beck himself? Like I said, what he's saying here has a point as far as it goes. But there's another teaching of Christianity that I think applies here: being quick to see the splinter in someone else's eye while completely missing the splinter in one's own. He's not incorrect, but he's painting a very incomplete picture, probably due to a severe lack of introspection on his own part.

clambam: Hair splitting. Hey, I like to do it as much as the next guy, but after a while it becomes self-defeating.

You say it's hair splitting, but really, it's more like splitting dental floss

clambam: Lighten up. You know what I meant.

I know, I know, but put yourself in my shoes, and realize that this stuff, well, matters to religious Jews.

Especially right around Tisha B'Av

clambam: More hair splitting. My point was that at the time those laws were formulated, 600 years or more before the Mishnah, you bet your ass that an eye was extracted for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

There is absolutely no proof to support that. Not only that, but all external writings about Jews from civilizations that encountered us say nothing like that about us.

If we had been plucking eyes right left and center, you can be sure that the Greeks would have written about it, for example, or that it would have been recorded somewhere.

clambam: Perfect harmony and abundance in nature? No sin or evil? Sure, piece of cake for a righteous dude.

Hey, as I said, G-d will intervene and make some miracles, my only problem is that you said that he had supernatural powers, and that's just not the case.

Ask any Rabbis and they'll tell you the same thing

clambam: Look Tats, I appreciate your coming out swinging against the Jew haters and Israel bashers, but sometimes you come off as smug and tendentious, and it does the cause little good. Lighten up a little and lay off the holier-than-thou shiat. It's annoying.

Well, I don't think I was particularly holier than too.

As for lightening up a little, I made an analogy involving a Yoshke-like character turning a stick into a gay dinosaur, so I'm not sure how much lighter I can get really

ZeroCorpse: Stupid argument.

Jesus is mythological. There's no evidence outside of the Bible to back up the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. He was made up by Paul during a desert-heat-inspired delusion, or maybe just as a character in a parable.

Jesus is not a real person. He never was a real person. He's fictional. If you're arguing about the meaning of Jesus' words, it's the same as arguing about how to interpret Peter Venkman's one-liners.

Fun? Sure. The basis of your faith? Idiotic.

You're not sure why you think it isn't true, but you know in your heart it mustn't be.

Wolf Flywheel: Soooooooo basically no-one in the thread understood that he was stating that if black liberation theology were true that Christ would have done what he described? Instead everyone wants to prove him wrong by quoting and arguing about christian theology?

Yes. The Huffington Post, leaders in taking Glenn Beck out of context, will declare him legally dead by tomorrow at this time. Then he will laugh for three hours (no, it's four now) straight about his "media tweak" just ike Rush does.

If one were reporting this honestly and chose not to cite the entire relevant conversation, they would have to write it thus:

"If Jesus was a `victim' and [black liberation] theology was true, he would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did"

I wouldn't say the things Glenn Beck says and he's too conservativee for my libertarian ideals (even though he says he's a libertarian). I can understand the outrage at first glance, but the paucity of investigation in this thread and the rest of the world is... no I guess it's not alarming.

Nevermind.

Wangiss: Nevermind.

Mate, we're probably the only three people in this thread who actually took care to listen to the whole 17 minutes.

It's a Glenn Beck thread, do you think people care whether he was right or wrong?

Indubitably: GB is all kinds of AW-drama-driving-$-suck. Self-perpetuating douchebag is first and foremost a douchie...

If you can't see that fact, then you need to power down and reset yer brain, yo.

You may poo-poo my delivery, but you cannot deny the message.

Word.

Truth works.

Look it up. shiat, write it on a farkin' chalkboard if you must.

Think for yerself.

;)

Should I use a green chalkboard or a black chalkboard?
/Just asking.

GB is batshiat crazy.

People need to stop saying his name or noticing he exists till he crawls away back down the sewer where he belongs.

Tatsuma: Kittypie070: Wow. How you can be that blind is beyond me.

I dare you to disregard this.(popsy)

I'm not being blind. I've seen the man talk enough about Jews and Israel to be sure that he isn't an anti-semite.

As for the second link, it's a bit of a trumped-up controversy. He was sent a book by a listener, didn't know who the author was, and the book itself wasn't anti-semitic, and he praised it on air. Later, when he learned about the author's leanings, he came out, apologized and said he was unaware of that, pointing out that the anti-semitism of the author isn't reflected in that particular book.

Does he go too far when lambasting what he sees as the Left, and ended up with egg on his face because of it? Yes, absolutely. Is he a Nazi sympathizer? Of course not.

Mormons typically side with Jews on pretty much everything. Orrin Hatch writes Hannukah "carols" (new window) that nymag.com claims "tear up the charts." My Jewish Homey Nathan told his Mormon friends they were the "new Jews" after learning about Missouri's 1938 extermination order (Mormons to be shot on sight) that was finally removed from the books in the USA's bicentennial year. Glenn Beck is typical to the faith in this respect, although he's certainly not a typical Mormon.

/Writing from Vegas, founded by Mormons, re-founded the Mafia.

Gaylord Fister: What's more important: why does 80% of the world believe in one or the other variant of bronze age middle eastern bullshiat and is willing to kill and die for it?

Cradle of civilization?

Tatsuma: Wangiss: Nevermind.

Mate, we're probably the only three people in this thread who actually took care to listen to the whole 17 minutes.

It's a Glenn Beck thread, do you think people care whether he was right or wrong?

I had time on my way to the gym.

That video was awesome. My favourite part was the bit about him earning everything he's gotten in life, and that his perfect world is a pure meritocracy, except when it comes to salvation and getting into heaven, which has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with submitting to (true) theology, and thus nothing to do with good deeds, such as being kind to your fellow man or helping out those less fortunate who, by the way, have earned their poverty because of their lack of merit.

Oh, and also the part where a Mormon is preaching about Christian theology.

misanthropologist: That video was awesome. My favourite part was the bit about him earning everything he's gotten in life, and that his perfect world is a pure meritocracy, except when it comes to salvation and getting into heaven, which has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with submitting to (true) theology, and thus nothing to do with good deeds, such as being kind to your fellow man or helping out those less fortunate who, by the way, have earned their poverty because of their lack of merit.

Oh, and also the part where a Mormon is preaching about Christian theology.

That's cute, Smokey, but submitting to (true) theology has a lot to do with good deeds.

Hey -
Someone must have dropped the religious bomb here, since the vacuum sucked Tatsuma and elchip back into the fray!

Long time no see.

Welcome back.

I personally signed off after watching the first 3 minutes of this clip and had to clear my head of the nonsense that is Beck.
Clearly delusional psychotic thought patterns... or an extremely clever TV TROLL. OR BOTH.

How do people justify abstruse interpretations of religious documents based on political biases?

This truly explains how wars are started.

I have a bucket of popcorn here....

It pains me to admit that any part of his argument is right.

meh on the rythmless beck, it was all preordained and foretold, which means that it was nobody's fault except jesus's daddy god jesus hisself.

Wangiss: Nevermind.

It's shocking to me how 'un-shocked' I am at the "intellectuals" these days who read a headline and become completely informed about something. No research and no pondering on their own part. It should move me to frustration more than it does but the absolute regularity of it has numbed me to the ignorance. I think mine is the greater crime.

*sigh*

"and revenge does not exactly sound like Jesus' command to love one's neighbor."

Yes, that's the bit.

Tatsuma,
Your name--does it mean dragon devil?
(Another translation, albeit a longshot, would be "several wives.")