Carnelian posted:Baz posted:Carnelian posted:Baz posted:Carnelian , I think you’ve been reading too much Eckardt
...which is fine , if that’s what you believe ....but can I just point out that you talk about the New Testament as if it was one entity , which it isn’t . Actually , it’s several totally separate *books* , which I believe were compiled by different individuals over many decades. Plus , to all intents and purposes, it was written by Jews ....so I’m not sure where that leaves your argument
Moreover , to throw your question back at you , how many Christians have you genuinely asked the question....or is it the case , as I suspect , that your argument is based entirely on what ...and who ...you’ve read. The bottom line is that sadly fanatics of all persuasions ....and creeds ....will bastardise anything to try and support their world view . Ergo I would argue that in this case it’s not the Bible which is the problem , it’s the bigots...past and present ... who use it in an attempt to legitimise what they want to do ! From my perspective I would also argue that, historically ,the roots of antisemitism were more firmly planted in economics than any religious text .
Hi Baz, I've not read Eckardi. I'm ignorant of this person and his arguments.
I understand that the NT is a work of many but modern Christians and those of the last 1000 years plus, understand the NT as the word of God and the "true" account of the martyrdom Jesus.
The martyrdom of Jesus and the betrayal of him by his "flock" - for money, by the Jews who Jesus represented.
The problem with the Bible isn't the bigots who take their favoured parts literally or those who pick and choose those parts that favour their zeal, as a work it SHOULD be taken literally by its adherents. The problem with the bible is The Bible.
Fair enough Carnelian.....I’m guessing that maybe you aren’t religious , but as a historian I think denigrating any book in that way is the first step on a very slippery road .
I don't think I'm denigrating the Bible. I think I'm accurately describing it and how it's been interpreted by Christians who drew on it to persecute the Jews.
I don't want anyone to burn the bible but really my stance is the absurd hypocritical attacks on Corbyn for writing a forward to a book that among many succinct observations on the class drivers of colonialism contains rather awkward indirect snippets of antisemitism popularly held at the time. Hobson's Imperialism is a work of its time, much as Oliver Twist or the Merchant of Venice was. Its heart is in the right place but it betray's the commonly held prejudices of its author. It's born of its British/white imperialist supremacist era. Hobson talks of 'lesser races' but puts that in quotations.
Corbyn's detractors are selectively outraged. All I'm doing is saying 'but what about the elephant in the room?'
At last , something we agree on Carnelian I think you’ve just proved my point .....both Hobson and the Bible are products of their time .....and should be seen as such . The difference is that JC didn’t write the forward in 1900 ....unless he’s a lot older than he appears The bottom line is that , no matter what way you cut it , there is antisemitism in the Labour Party , and despite numerous calls from various factions JC has failed to deal with it ....that’s the crux of the criticisms.