BIRTHRIGHT AND JEC HOST EVANGELICAL LEADER WHO PROMOTES MESSIANIC JUDAISM

An Evangelical leader who believes Jews can accept Jesus without giving up their Jewish identity will be the keynote speaker in two weeks at an event for Birthright Israel alumni, sponsored by Birthright NEXT and the Jewish Enrichment Center.

BREAKING NEWS: Birthright NEXT Hosts Evangelical Leader Who Promotes Messianic Judaism
by Sharon Udasin And Stewart Ain • The Jewish Week

An Evangelical leader who believes Jews can accept Jesus without giving up their Jewish identity will be the keynote speaker in two weeks at an event for Birthright Israel alumni, sponsored by Birthright NEXT and the Jewish Enrichment Center.

"You can still be Jewish and believe in Jesus as the messiah," the invited speaker, Gordon Robertson, said on a July 2008 program of the Christian Broadcasting Network, of which he is the CEO.

The network was founded by his father, the Rev. Pat Robertson, a former presidential candidate, who once blamed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's severe stroke on his willingness to "divide the land" of Israel.

A Birthright NEXT official said the group is aware of Gordon Robertson's beliefs that a Jew 
 can believe in Jesus, but maintains that his theological views have no impact on his suitability has a speaker.

"We're not asking him to come and talk about Christianity or Jews trying to get Jews to believe in Christianity. It's not the topic," said Rebecca Sugar, the New York director of Birthright Israel NEXT NY alumni programming.

Robertson's Nov. 18 talk to the Birthright alumni - which will attract former participants as young as 18 to a dinner at the Carlton Hotel here - is titled, "Are Evangelical Christians More Fervent Zionists than American Jews?"

"My audience, Birthright Israel alumni, is a sophisticated, intelligent audience," Sugar said. "I hope they'll read up on Mr. Robertson and use this as an opportunity to ask him their concerns."

During that July 13 CBN program, which announced a rise in Israeli messianic Jews, Robertson goes on to say: "You don't have to change your culture, you can still observe the Torah, you can still be Jewish and still believe that Jesus is the messiah."

He noted that 30 years ago, just 3,500 Israeli Jews identified themselves as messianic Jews. Today, he said, there are between 10,000 and 15,000 in 120 congregations across the country. On the broadcast, he called this dramatic increase a "real breakthrough."

"It's marvelous," Robertson said. "It's incredible what's going on in our generation. What seemed impossible is happening."

Many Jewish leaders consider messianic Judaism a particularly pernicious form of evangelizing because, in their view, it uses deception to convince vulnerable Jews that they can accept Christian doctrine and still retain their  identity as Jews.

The question posed as the title of Robertson's talk is a fair one, Sugar said, given the huge number of Christian pilgrims who have visited Israel, even during times of intifada. She says, however, that her organization is by no means trying to suggest an answer to that question.

Recently, Birthright Next has come under fire for turning over programming to an Orthodox organization, the Jewish Enrichment Center. Evangelical Christian support for Israel is strongly upheld in the Orthodox community. But many Jewish critics say such support may be based on Christian "end-times" Bible prophecies that predict and welcome new wars that will decimate the state of Israel; those battles, some believe,  are the necessary precursors to the coming of the Christian messiah.

The announcement that Robertson is to be the keynote speaker at the Nov. 18 event comes just a week after Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel spoke at a conference in Texas hosted by the controversial  Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel (CUFI). In his remarks to an audience of 6,000, Wiesel said  he was overjoyed to see so many Christians gathered in support of Israel.

And Birthright Next hopes to see continued Christian support for Israel as well, despite sharp differences over the concept of the messiah and the legitimacy of messianic Judaism.

"If  [Bible prophecy is] the end game for them  and we have a different end game, then when the end comes, one of us will be right and one of us will be wrong," Sugar said. "If [Robertson] is writing checks to Israel and he's helping Jews move there, you have to decide for yourself whether that's good or bad."

Index of Birthright, Birthright NEXT, and JEC posts.

Comments

[Yeze]

What's the problem with that?

What's the difference between Judaism missionaries and Messianic/Christian missionaries?

Why is one worse than the other?

[Shmarya]

Please.

Messianic "Judaism" is NOT Judaism – it's Christianity.

[critical_minyan]

better them then chabad.

[R]

I guess it's the same as a Chabad Rabbi coming to speak and say you can still be Jewish but believe the Rebbe is the messiah.

[state of disgust]

"Messianic "Judaism" is NOT Judaism"

Neither are the beliefs of the dead rebbe followers.

[Yeze]

Exactly! Come on, how often do Orthodox Rabbis promote Chabad without your comment?
Is this really that big a story?

Plus the guy never said believing in Jesus was Judaism, he said you could still be Jewish and believe in Jesus. There's a difference.

[Yeze]

Exactly! Plus the guy never said you can believe in Jesus and practise Judaism, he said you can believe in Jesus and be Jewish. That's a huge difference.

[sage]

Just Food for Thought

Compare what is known about how Jesus behaved and what he taught to how the Rebbe behaved and what he taught.

There are significant differences.

[harold]

he said you could still be Jewish and believe in Jesus.

I guess one has to define just what it means to be Jewish. If to be Jewish means to be born of a Jewish mother then one can say that "one can be Jewish and (fill in the blank)".

When one talks about being Jewish in the traditional sense it would almost by definition preclude the belief in Jesus and the belief in Jesus almost defines one to be Christian.

Scott is right, Messianic "Judaism" is NOT Judaism – it's Christianity.

[Shmarya]

Exactly! Plus the guy never said you can believe in Jesus and practise Judaism, he said you can believe in Jesus and be Jewish. That's a huge difference.

No it isn't. Not in the context it was said.

[Yeze]

Harold: I know Messianic Jews are Christians. You'll get no argument from me.

But otherwise, I don't understand the objection: modern-day Judaism, with some notable exceptions, accepts people who believe in a divine, resurrected Messiah as authentic Jews.

There is a difference between practising Judaism and being Jewish.

All Robertson said was: "You can still be Jewish and believe in Jesus as the messiah."

If he had said "You can still be Jewish and believe in the Rebbe as Messiah" or "You can still be Jewish and be an atheist", then this would be a non-story.

Even if you're saying that Robertson, why is it a problem? Surely Birthright and their clients are secure enough in their own minds and beliefs not to make this an issue.

Plus it's clear that this is not a theological event, it's about Israel.

[Yeze]

Above should read:

*Even if you're saying that Robinson does consider Messianic Judaism a form of Judaism (not what he said, and the term "Messianic Judaism" does not appear in the article), why is it a problem?

[Smart]

No Problem, their to discuss pro-Israel unity, not religion.

[Mr. Apikorus]

The Holocaust counts among its victims many thousands of Christians who were murdered because they were Jewish.

[Shmarya]

The Holocaust counts among its victims many thousands of Christians who were murdered because they were Jewish.

So now we use the Nuremberg criteria for determining Jewishness? We follow the Nazis?

Idiot.

[Theodore]

These chaps believe that Christianity is
the fulfillment of Judaism and they're
ultimate goal is to convert all Jews to
a belief in Jesus as the Messiah,son of
God,God himself.
Just read the New Testament. Plus,
the New Testament views Torah, Judiasm
as being not needed,obselete.

[Yeze]

What criteria do you use, Shmarya?

A Jew is a Jew no matter what he believes, surely?

[Yeze]

So now we use the Nuremberg criteria for determining Jewishness? We follow the Nazis?

Idiot.

The Nuremberg Laws are hugely important for modern Jews, forming the basis of the state of Israel's (albeit inconsistent) aliyah policy - a state recognised by the world as a homeland for those Hitler would have eliminated for being Jewish.

[Yeze]

Plus,
the New Testament views Torah, Judiasm
as being not needed,obselete.

So (as far as I understand, do forgive me if I've misrepresented you) does Shmarya - that's no reason not to listen to him.

[Asa]

Yeze, my question to you is, Why isn't it a problem? Why, in your opinion, is it not a problem to promote Christianity in the guise of Judaism?

[Tarfon Steinerman]

just goes to show you: Being a fanatic is never a good idea, no matter what your religeon is.

[Yeze]

But that's totally not the issue here. The issue is that a Christian who thinks Jews remain Jews if they believe in Jesus is considered controversial. That is merely another opinion.

If you start ostracising people who have other opinions then pretty soon no-one will actually say what they really think, creating a chilling effect. Let the guy say what he wants to say and walk away. He's clearly not going to offend his hosts, and even if he did I'm sure they can cope.

[Yeze]

Why, in your opinion, is it not a problem to promote Christianity in the guise of Judaism?

Well, I don't think one should actually. I think Jesus' messianic claims don't need to be weighed against Judaism but instead judged on their own merits.

[Asa]

No. That's faulty logic.

1. The whole concept of 'Messiah' (at least as Jesus played it out) originates in Isaiah. We all know that. Jesus's life, deeds, and accomplishments can therefore not logically be separated from the Isaiah prophecy. Jesus has no merit as Messiah outside of Isaiah; and in that he failed to fulfill the criteria for Messiah outlined in Isaiah, Jesus as Messiah is bunk.

2. It has, nonetheless, been weighed on its 'own merits': belief in the dead Jesus as Messiah has engendered more grief than gladness; we all know that as well.

[seymour]

lively argument about a man who may never have existed

[Yeze]

belief in the dead Jesus as Messiah has engendered more grief than gladness; we all know that as well.

Is the problem the people or the beliefs which motivate them? Is the Torah evil because of the likes of Kolko and Rubashkin? Of course not. Followers of all religions are capable of evil.

The whole concept of 'Messiah' (at least as Jesus played it out) originates in Isaiah.

Yes, and I have a different take on Isaiah to Judaism's take. That doesn't make me a bad person.

[levi]

for these people, the topic of israel is a religious topic. They support Israeli aggression in the name of religion. Bush got his intel briefings with old-testament quotes on the cover.

[Yeze]

Israel's also a religious topic for lots of Orthodox Jews.

[Asa]

Who said it makes you a bad person? Yeze, my mother is Christian, my father is Christian, my siblings are Christians. I was a Christian. My mother is irreplaceable to me, and we respect each other's right to believe what we choose, as we choose.

True, the followers of a religion are often more dangerous than the originators of it. However, one cannot compare Rubashkin to, say, the Spanish Inquisition. Whole other ballgame.

I myself don't buy all of classic Torah interpretation as we have it. But when it comes to Jesus, who (as Seymour pointed out) may or may not have existed, we have to define what makes a Messiah a Messiah? In what way is he a savior? It's ridiculous to believe that a single person can atone for the unrepented sins of a multitude, especially all these generations later. How does Jesus merit the title of Savior? That's what has to be defined, if you're separating the Isaiaic prophecy from the man.

[Yeze]

Who said it makes you a bad person? Yeze, my mother is Christian, my father is Christian, my siblings are Christians. I was a Christian. My mother is irreplaceable to me, and we respect each other's right to believe what we choose, as we choose.

Asa, my apologies, I shouldn't imply or accuse so readily. Sorry.

However, one cannot compare Rubashkin to, say, the Spanish Inquisition.

I know, I take your point. But the Inquisition was directed firstly against Jewish Christians. Their motives and practice were examined in fine detail. If they were caught out wearing a white shirt on Shabbat or keeping Torah in the home, people said: look! Those New Christians aren't like us Old Christians. They think they can be Christians and keep their Judaism!

Those who converted to Christianity following pogroms against Jews were examined to see if they were practising Judaism still. The same attitude was applied to Moorish Christians, then it spread to all Jews and Moors.

I don't think Torquemada was inspired by Christianity or anything in the New Testament to go about the Inquisition, although he could have found something to justify it to himself.

Dostoevsky writes a story about Torquemada and Jesus in the Brothers Karamazov, in which Torquemada arrests Jesus and tells him why the church doesn't need him any more. I don't think the relationship between religious texts and religious authority is always harmonious.

What I'm saying is that there are reasons why people believe Jesus is the Messiah, some based on an understanding of the Bible that differs from Orthodox Judaism. Many do see Jesus as a redeemer-figure based on the gospel accounts, and people are welcome to disagree with those. Some people will have reasons that don't make any sense to anyone apart from themselves.

[Mr. Apikorus]

I don't define Jews by how the Nazis did. The Nazis defined Jews by the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which incidentally, they honored in the breach. For example, Luftwaffe Field Marshall and convicted Erhard Milch was ethnically 100% Jewish, according to Bryan Rigg in his book "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers" and since confirmed by other researchers. Hermann Goering decided to make Milch an Aryan, quoting the anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna, Karl Lueger, "Wer Juden ist, bestimme ich (I say who's Jewish)," a phrase that's incorrectly attributed to Goering himself.

I personally use Birthright's definition, one who has one Jewish parent or who seriously considers himself Jewish, which Michael Steinhardt himself reiterated at a lecture I attended on October 27th at the 92nd Street Y in NYC.

Once again, Shmarya, you put words in my mouth and vilify me. That doesn't make me look bad, but it sure doesn't make you look good.

I expect an apology, right here, right now.

[Asa]

I see your point too, Yeze. And, you're right, murderous persons or peoples or organizations will pervert what they will to wipe out whom they will.

My personal hanging on to Jesus was purely emotional. It is very convenient to my mental/spiritual/emotional needs to have a god I could at least imagine physically hugging and talking to, a god who supposedly answered humans back in human terms.

I have since observed (even in my own mother) that this emotional attachment applies at least to most Christians. The reasons are purely emotional. And, believe me, most Christians are not at all well-versed in the NT, beyond a very superficial one. Paul himself very shallowly read Genesis, and based his subsequent shallow philosophies on these shallow misreadings.

Most refuse to consider counter-arguments, since they don't want the emotional glass house shattered. The exact same glass house 'reasoning' can be found in uber-chabadniks (again, I've had personal friendships with such), who refuse to hear any kind of Torah or halachic counter-reasoning against haredism, chassidism, and Rebbe-as-Messiah-ism, because of their own attachments which they need to maintain. In the Rebbe's case, the kind blue eyes, the myths, the promises, the love...it's all food for the starving soul, which needs a figure it can latch on to when God becomes too too incomprehensible to cope with.

Even in Isaiah, the King James version of the Bible is mistranslated from the Hebrew in order to better fit the life of Jesus.

Anyway, we agree on some things, maybe disagree on others, but I think at least we get each other now.

[critical_minyan]

at least these guys support the state of Israel, don't riot on the streets and arent anti-secular education. We would never see them kiss Ahmadjenibad.
In most ways they are more Jewish than most people in williamsburg, monroe or meah shearim.
My only issue with them is that they probably a little too social conservative for my tastes.
The whole Jesus thing is over rated. Very few people believe Jesus was the son of god anymore. I bet the pope secretly doesnt buy that hogwash anymore.

[seymour]

they only support Israel as part of is destruction as per the end of days. I do not call that support
A Jew cannot still claim to be of Jewish faith if they think Jesus was the messiah. Since the prophets did say that when the messiah comes everything will change for the good and no wars, that did not happen, hence no messiah.

[alternative childcare]

Mr A: I thought you defined everything by what the Nazis did. You certainly know more about Nazis than about tefillin.
Seriously, though, what was your point in bringing up the Nazi era, that Christians died in the Shoah, which doesn't seem to be very relevant to this discussion (other than remind people of your Nazi obsession). So did Jehovah's Witnesses. And as a result we should... what?

[Mr. Apikorus]

Yes, I know more about Nazis than tefillin. I'm a WWII buff. I know a lot about the Japanese, too, as well as the Allied forces. The more you know about what happened, the more sensitive you'll be to a possible recurrance, even though it certainly won't involve Germans the next time around.

I put on tefillin exactly twice in my life; once at my bar mitzvah, and once as practice, under the tutelage of my grandfather. Don't remember putting any on my head, just around my arm. That's actually more than what most of today's Jews know.

What should we do because Christians died in the Holocaust (about 4 million of them, actually)? Well, there's not much we can do, except to remember that 4 out of 10 Holocaust victims weren't Jewish.

We can actually do two things: First, we can go after nonagenerian purported Nazis. Except for those who are fugitives from justice, that's a waste of time. Good luck finding witnesses. More important, we can remember what happened 65 years ago, and make sure it doesn't ever happen again, even if the intended victims aren't Jewish.

(My point, which was reiterated time and again to me by my parents, was that one didn't need to consider oneself Jewish to become a Holocaust victim.)

[maven]

Mr A: great, we can talk about the "flying guillotine" and Yamamoto later.
However, I still don't understand what any of this has to do with Pat Robertson's son, Israel, or Messianic Jews.

[Mr. Apikorus]

It doesn't, Maven, but I was responding to one of my two nemesises (is that the right plural?) here.

Again, AC, I apologizing for straying off topic, but we both married German women, who were anything but Nazi sympathizers (I can't speak for your in-laws, but mine were SD, and I have the records to prove it). What drove Germans, who prior to WWI were among the most tolerant (and educated) of Europeans, to commit these atrocities? I can understand the Russians, Poles, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians, but not Germans. Was it merely the Depression? Was it the Treaty of Versailles? Please enlighten me.

I read Goldhagen's book, and totally reject his thesis.

[Shmarya]

The Nuremberg Laws are hugely important for modern Jews, forming the basis of the state of Israel's (albeit inconsistent) aliyah policy - a state recognised by the world as a homeland for those Hitler would have eliminated for being Jewish.

Are you truly that dense?

When it comes to SAVING LIVES, providing a SAFE HAVEn, etc. Israel used those criteria.

But, at the same time, it will NOT give citizenship under the law of return to Jews who have converted to other religions. That is also the law.

Again, you believe in Jesus? Then you are N-O-T a practicing Jew.

And here's a little tip for you: Halakha, Jewish law, mandates a form of CONVERSION for Jews who believed in Jesus but wish to return to halakhic Judaism.

I don't support violence against Messianic Jews. But there is no way anyone should tolerate your inaccurate, disingenuous BS>

[the Monsey Tzadik]

Not sure what the issue is, he could say that you can believe in xenu and still be Jewish, he could say that you can believe that the Dalai Lama is the 14th reincarnation of bodhisattva Avalokitesvara.

You obviously do not agree and that cool too. Mr. Robertson does not have to change HIS beliefs in order to be approved as TALGLIT speaker

[Yeze]

Again, you believe in Jesus? Then you are N-O-T a practicing Jew.

When did I say I was?

An "apostate" Jew is still a Jew.

I'm not claiming to practise Judaism, so the worst you can accuse me of is heresy, and you yourself have a blog called "The Heretic."

So either both of us or neither of us would deserve Israeli citizenship.

[Yeze]

When it comes to SAVING LIVES, providing a SAFE HAVEn, etc. Israel used those criteria.

But, at the same time, it will NOT give citizenship under the law of return to Jews who have converted to other religions. That is also the law.

In other words, the Nazis could still kill me for being a Jew, and Israel would deny me safe haven for being a Christian?

[Yeze]

I don't support violence against Messianic Jews.

Well of course you don't, no sane person does - you shouldn't feel the need to even mention that.

[Yeze]

And here's a little tip for you: Halakha, Jewish law, mandates a form of CONVERSION for Jews who believed in Jesus but wish to return to halakhic Judaism.

Are you saying I should convert? I have absolutely no desire to convert to Judaism thanks. I'm genuinely surprised that you're suggesting in order to identify as Jewish one needs to practice halakhic Judaism.

[Yeze]

Anyway, we agree on some things, maybe disagree on others, but I think at least we get each other now.

Agreed!

[Michelle]

B"H

Shmarya,

I wish you would deep-6 the evangelizing messianic xtian. He has nothing to offer but prosthelytizing for jc here and, unless you condone such a behavior, it seems its time for him to go.

Michelle

[Shmarya]

Are you saying I should convert? I have absolutely no desire to convert to Judaism thanks. I'm genuinely surprised that you're suggesting in order to identify as Jewish one needs to practice halakhic Judaism.

Process: What I did is prove the foundations of your argument wrong.

All Jews – and by this term I mean Jews who have N-O-T converted to another religion – and/or the state owes 'Jews' who formally follow Jesus, be they Hebrew Christians, Messianics, or Baptists, is to provide safety and shelter IF these Christian 'Jews' are being killed by people who view them as Jews and who kill them for that reason.

That's the position of the state. That's also the position of halakha.

And giving shelter does not mean giving these Christian 'Jews' the free reign to evangelize, missionize and preach.

[Yeze]

Process: What I did is prove the foundations of your argument wrong.

How?

IF these Christian 'Jews' are being killed by people who view them as Jews and who kill them for that reason.

That's the position of the state.

No it's not the position of the state, which expressedly DOESN'T allow Messianic Jews to make aliyah, whatever the weather.

That's also the position of halakha

So? Neither me nor you are religious Jews who practise Judaism. That's completely irrelevant.

And giving shelter does not mean giving these Christian 'Jews' the free reign to evangelize, missionize and preach.

However Israeli law DOES give those 'Christian 'Jews'' "the free right to evangelize, missionize and preach."

That's because Israel is a democracy with freedom of speech. Just like Orthodox Jewish organisations are free to evangelize, missionize and preach in the USA.

[Yeze]

Let's apply your argument to Chabad:

All Jews – and by this term I mean Jews who have N-O-T converted to another religion – and/or the state owes 'Jews' who formally follow the Rebbe, be they Beis Moshiach or mainstream Lubavitch, is to provide safety and shelter IF these Chabad 'Jews' are being killed by people who view them as Jews and who kill them for that reason.

That's the position of the state. That's also the position of halakha.

And giving shelter does not mean giving these Chabad 'Jews' the free reign to evangelize, missionize and preach.

[Yeze]

He has nothing to offer but prosthelytizing for jc here

Where?

Nice attempt to deflect the argument though.

[I rather not say]

From my past life...

Once you believe in Jesus then you are no longer Jewish -- Catholic Church---

If you are going to believe in Jesus then one should become a Catholic (or one of the Orthodox branches like Greek Orthodox) Because all other offshoots are man thought or man made otherwise it is just being a lousy heretic.

See I can turn the tables on a 'Jew' for Jesus and scream HERETIC! at them
ha ha ha ha ha

I would rather not say

[Mr. Apikorus]

Michelle:

I don't find a messianic Jew the least bit offensive. However, I find people who consider Baruch Goldstein a hero because he killed 29 Palestinians more than offensive.

In fact, I consider Baruch Goldstein exactly on the same level as that son-of-a-bitch Army doctor who murdered 12 soldiers yesterday.

[Yeze]

See I can turn the tables on a 'Jew' for Jesus and scream HERETIC! at them
ha ha ha ha ha

Of course, it's not like I've ever been called a heretic before!

[Shmarya]

Pathetic.

I'll try again. You attempt to process.

1. The state DOES give shelter to people who are non-Jews or apostate Jews if the life-threatening persecution they suffer is because the persecutors view them as Jews.

Shelter does not necessarily equal citizenship.

2 Jews who have converted to another religion – and that includes all Messianics – are not eligible for the law of return. They may be eligible for citizenship in other ways, or they may not. Each case is unique.

3. Chabad today is very similar to what Christianity was just BEFORE the split from halakhic Judaism. That means tomorrow or next week or next month or next year, Chabad may very well be halakhicly equivalent to Christianity. When that point is reached – and it looks like it will be – halakhic Judaism will push the state to treat Chabad as it now treat Messianic Judaism.

Now, like I said: process.

[Mr. Apikorus]

Birthright Israel (and Birthright NEXT) are horrible, subversive entities masquerading as free trips to Israel. They are designed to fill the minds of impressionable youth with ultra-Orthodox (or is it messianic Christian?) propaganda. The Jewish version of Kraft Durch Freude.

First, we read about the BIG SCANDAL: Birthright NEXT is a covert arm of the ultra-Orthodox. You go to a Birthright NEXT function, and if you're male, you'll leave with a black hat, and if you're female, a burqa.

Second, we read about how that same Birthright NEXT has invited Pat Robertson's son to speak at one of its events. Yes, the same Pat Robertson who runs the "700 Club," and who was Jerry Falwell's buddy and sometime rival in turning American youth into far-right, abortion-hating missionaries for JESUS.

Not only that, Birthright doesn't work. Why, a study showed that only 4% of Birthright alumni become active in the Jewish community. Wait! A second, more recent study pegged that number at 30%, but that study was "flawed," because those who went on Birthright trips were ex-ante more committed to Judaism than those who were turned down, even though the control group was made up of those who were turned down, and those selected to go on a trip were generally selected by lot.

I can only come to one conclusion from all this: The purpose of Birthright is to divide and conquer Jewish minds, to create controversy, confusion, and dissention, and ultimately turn those young impressionable minds into missionaries. Not for Haredim, not for Jesus, but for SATAN.

That would be the only logical explanation for this program, wouldn't it?

[Yeze]

Shelter does not necessarily equal citizenship.

Right, so you're saying Messianic Jews should be sheltered by Israel, but not citizens?

Depriving people of rights solely because of their beliefs is precisely how Mediaeval Christians treated Jews in Western Europe, and now you're arguing that Judaism should mirror this in Israel?

Chabad today is very similar to what Christianity was just BEFORE the split from halakhic Judaism.

What more must they do not to be halakhic Judaism?

[Yeze]

That would be the only logical explanation for this program, wouldn't it?

Exactly: if Birthright had invited a Chabad rabbi, there's a theological problem, if they invite a pro-Messianic Christian, there's also a theological problem.

Then if they invite Orthodox rabbis they're accused of brainwashing young Jews!

What can Birthright possibly do to appease its critics?

[Shmarya]

Right, so you're saying Messianic Jews should be sheltered by Israel, but not citizens?

Depriving people of rights solely because of their beliefs is precisely how Mediaeval Christians treated Jews in Western Europe, and now you're arguing that Judaism should mirror this in Israel?

Please. Either you're an idiot or you're a disingenuous in the extreme.

The issue is not "denying" citizenship. The issue is automatically and freely granting it.

Think of it this way: a person's grandfather was an American citizen. America passes a law that says that, barring certain associations – support for Al Qaeda, for example, or involvement in criminal acts, or involvement in unsavory acts – this person can come to America and be automatically given citizenship. Immigration quotas, etc., do not apply.

This is what Israel says about that person.

So a Hebrew Christian from Alabama can't get citizenship under the law of return. He can still visit Israel, stay for extended periods of time, and apply for citizenship through the normal non-Law-Of-Return process.

While visiting Israel, the Hebrew Christian has exactly the same rights as all other visitors. If granted citizenship, he has the exact same rights as all other Israelis.

What more must [Chabad] do not to be halakhic Judaism?
Like with early Christians, there is a lag time between doing enough to be booted out from halakhic Judaism and the actual split.

Chabad may have done enough already.

[Yeze]

This is what I don't understand:

How would you define missionary activity? Would it require someone to be handing out leaflets and shouting on a street corner, or would it simply include advertising Messianic services in Israel? Who would make the distinction? What would happen if people are asked about what they believe, can they answer without it being considered as illegal missionary activity? According to Michelle, my arguments themselves are proselytising efforts.

So if we were in Israel having this discussion then I should get arrested for it? And if it's wrong to discuss these things in Israel, is it also wrong to discuss them in America?

What would happen to freedom of speech if one issue was considered taboo? Have you considered the chilling effect this would have on people's beliefs if expressing certain beliefs were illegal?

If an opinion is wrong, then you should counter it with reason and logic. Imprisoning or punishing people who publicly express non-Judaic beliefs is absurd.

[Shmarya]

if Birthright had invited a Chabad rabbi, there's a theological problem, if they invite a pro-Messianic Christian, there's also a theological problem.

Then if they invite Orthodox rabbis they're accused of brainwashing young Jews!

What can Birthright possibly do to appease its critics?

Using a Jewishly illiterate person's ramblings as support doesn't exactly help your 'case.'

Birthright fails because it succeeds far less that it should given the money and access it has.

I've written extensively on this and explained what Birthright is doing that hurts its success.

As for who Birthright invites to speak, that invitation did not come in a vacuum.

Birthright in NYC has skewed its aftercare to the religious and political right, and has done much of it deceptively.

Having Robertson speak on the heels of revelations about this would be headline news no matter what Robertson said vis a vis Jews believing in Jesus.

But the fact that he does (at least theologically) support various missions to convert Jews is also news.

One of Birthright's goals is to stop intermarriage. Another is to stop conversion of Jews to other religions.

Having Robertson speak is therefore doubly wrong.

[Shmarya]

So if we were in Israel having this discussion then I should get arrested for it? And if it's wrong to discuss these things in Israel, is it also wrong to discuss them in America?

What would happen to freedom of speech if one issue was considered taboo? Have you considered the chilling effect this would have on people's beliefs if expressing certain beliefs were illegal?

If an opinion is wrong, then you should counter it with reason and logic. Imprisoning or punishing people who publicly express non-Judaic beliefs is absurd.

Like I said, you're either an idiot or you're disingenuous in the extreme.

No one is talking about imprisonment. All we're talking about is qualifying for citizenship under the law of return.

But you are a good example of why Israel doesn't want Messianic Jews, and why the rest of us don't want you, either.

Like so many Christian missionaries before you, you make your 'case' through disingenuous speech.

What you do is disgusting.

[I rather not say]

Dear Yeze:
I respect your beliefs, Anybody that wants to believe in Jesus should be allowed to do so, However I would advise you to do it properly...
You need to see a Catholic priest- perhaps if you have MiddleEastern roots perhaps one of the Eastern Churches would be more your style.All of these trace their lineage back to the Disciples.
Heck you can even become a Muslim cause they believe Jesus to be a prophet of Allah.
This Jews for Jesus thing was thought up about a 100 years ago and I believe it came from the Baptist Christians who themselves were formed from another Christian heretical sect.(So how true could the Baptists be? ha ha ha)
You NEED to go back to the TRUE church.

[Yeze]

...a Jewishly illiterate person's ramblings...

I'll just ignore this.

No one is talking about imprisonment. All we're talking about is qualifying for citizenship under the law of return.

Which Messianic Jews should clearly, if Israel is a homeland for all Jewish people for whom anti-Semitism is a threat. If Israel accepts Messianic Jews but not as citizens, then you are treating them as second-class citizens.

Like so many Christian missionaries before you, you make your 'case' through disingenuous speech.

Disgusting.

Nice attempt to throw the discussion off-hand by disingenuously labelling me a Christian missionary. You're also disingenuously implying that all Messianic Jews are Christian missionaries, which we're not.

Isn't that also quite disgusting?

But you are a good example of why Israel doesn't want Messianic Jews, and why the rest of us don't want you, either.

Who's the "rest of us"? I'm guessing you get a lot of this kind of language from people opposed to FM, and suggest you're displacing your frustrations onto other marginalised Jewish voices. I could be wrong though.

You NEED to go back to the TRUE church

I thought I had to go back to Judaism, that's a new one!

[Shmarya]

If Israel accepts Messianic Jews but not as citizens, then you are treating them as second-class citizens.

Another fine example of disingenuousness from you. You misstate what I wrote in oder to make your point.

Messianic Jews do not and should not qualify under the law of return.

Israel will provide safe haven if necessary, and it will allow individual Messianic Jews to apply for citizenship through the normal, non-Law-of-Return process.

The issue of whether believing in Jesus makes you non-Jewish was decided approximately 1900 years ago. It was reaffirmed by the Israeli Supreme Court in the Brother Daniel case.

[Yeze]

The issue of whether believing in Jesus makes you non-Jewish was decided approximately 1900 years ago.

That's funny, Rashi must have missed a trick:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1105rashi.html

"Herewith do I, the undersigned, answer him who has questioned me concerning the marriage of a certain girl who was married at a time when she and the groom, as well as the witnesses to the ceremony, had already been forced by Gentiles to disavow the Jewish religion.

I am of the opinion that this woman requires a bill of divorcement before she can marry another man. The marriage of a Jew who has even voluntarily become an apostate and then marries is legal [according to Jewish law]. For it is said [Joshua 7: 11] “Israel has sinned,” meaning [Sanhedrin 44a] that even though he has sinned he is still an Israelite. How much the more is this true in the case a£ all these forced converts who at heart are still loyal to God. Now in this particular case how their final conduct reflects their original attitude, for as soon as they were able to find some form of escape they returned to Judaism. And even though the witnesses may have led a loose life while living among the non­Jews and may be suspected of the iniquities of the Gentiles, nevertheless their testimony to the marriage does not thereby become invalid…."

It was reaffirmed by the Israeli Supreme Court in the Brother Daniel case.

Ever heard of law reforms?

Or should we base all of society's laws on ancient precepts while we're at it?

[Shmarya]

Please.

Your complete ignorance of halakha and the halakhic process is only matched by your disingenuousness.

The marriage being discussed was conducted according to halakha, even though the couple had outwardly converted to Christianity.

Rashi's opinion – which you clearly don't understand – says that even two Jews who converted to Christianity willingly and then married would need a Jewish religious divorce.

In the same way, if I were feeding these two apostates, I would be OBLIGATED to give them kosher food.

Why?

Because these apostates are under halakha obligated in all the commandments of Judaism (especially the negative commandments) but are entitled to none of the privileges and benefits granted to Jews by that same halakha.

So an apostate would not be counted in a minyan, given an aliya, allowed to lead services, etc. If the Jewish community has a health club, the apostate could not join or use it. If the Jewish community took a trip to Israel, the apostate could not join it.

Process.

[Yeze]

No - he quoted the Talmud, which says an Israelite is still an Israelite, and *then* applied it to the marriage context.

Digest.

[Shmarya]

Please.

You do not have the slightest clue.

You're ignorant. You're disingenuous. And you're very wrong.

[Yeze]

Please.

You do not have the slightest clue.

You're ignorant. You're disingenuous. And you're very wrong.

So 0 facts and 4 opinions in that comment. Nice.

[Shmarya]

So 0 facts and 4 opinions in that comment. Nice.

No.

I gave you the facts. Y-O-U offered an opinion.

But the FACT is your opinion is W-R-O-N-G.

There are reams of teshuvot on these issues. Why? because CHRISTIANS did something called the Inquisition, and Jews had to deal with other Jews and their descendants who converted as a result.

But, because you are ignorant and arrogant, you don't know this.

[Yeze]

Come on - you said Rashi was just commenting on a marriage - I showed you that Rashi was quoting the Talmud which says that Jewish Christians are still Jews outside of the context of marriage given by Rashi.

"Why? because CHRISTIANS did something called the Inquisition, and Jews had to deal with other Jews and their descendants who converted as a result."

Do you know who the Inquisition targeted in the first place? Jews who converted to Christianity. Some of those Jews were converting for social reasons, other for genuine reasons. Any of them maintaining Jewish practices were targeted. After the Inquisition had targeted Jewish Christians, it moved on to mainstream Jews.

So how are Jewish Christians in any way responsible for persecution which originally targeted them???

But, because you are ignorant and arrogant, you don't know this.

Arrogant! For expressing an opinion on a blog!

If you're confident enough in your arguments then you let them speak for themselves, and you shouldn't have to resort to ad hominem accusations.

[Shmarya]

Come on - you said Rashi was just commenting on a marriage

Like I said, you're completely ignorant.

You do not understand the halakhic process any more than you understand what Rashi said.

Rashi was citing a precedent for requiring a get. I explained the full scope of that precedent above.

Do you know who the Inquisition targeted in the first place? Jews who converted to Christianity. Some of those Jews were converting for social reasons, other for genuine reasons. Any of them maintaining Jewish practices were targeted. After the Inquisition had targeted Jewish Christians, it moved on to mainstream Jews.

Please.

Your ignorance is appalling.

Jews didn't convert for "social" reasons – they converted because, if they did not, they would be killed or expelled.

These Jews – Conversos – practiced Judaism in secret. In public, they pretended to be Catholic. They were N-O-T "Jewish-Christians."

[Yeze]

Like I said, you're completely ignorant.

Okay, then what's your take on Sanhedrin 44a?

Jews didn't convert for "social" reasons – they converted because, if they did not, they would be killed or expelled.

These Jews – Conversos – practiced Judaism in secret. In public, they pretended to be Catholic. They were N-O-T "Jewish-Christians."

You should read Benzion Netanyahu (Bibi's dad) on the Inquisition:

"Netanyahu argues for a different view: that the conversos were in fact almost all genuine Christians who were persecuted for political ends. The Inquisition's attacks not only on the conversos' religious beliefs but also on their "impure blood" gave birth to an anti-Semitism based on race that would have terrible consequences for centuries to come."

Netanyahu is an Israeli historian and prominent Zionist whose father was a rabbi and whose son is currently Israel's Prime Minister. Definitely not ignorant then.

[Shmarya]

"Netanyahu argues for a different view: that the conversos were in fact almost all genuine Christians who were persecuted for political ends.…"

Yes. But the above quote is inaccurate. What Netanyahu says, I believe, is that most of the jews who converted rather than be expelled did so for genuine reasons, and were true Christians theologically. They were only made Conversos by the persecution of the Church.

But the other Conversos were pretending on the outside to be Catholics but were, in secret, Jews.

But neither group were "Jewish-Christians."

what's your take on Sanhedrin 44a?

Which part?

[Yeze]

What Netanyahu says, I believe, is that most of the jews who converted rather than be expelled did so for genuine reasons, and were true Christians theologically. They were only made Conversos by the persecution of the Church.

The expulsions weren't until 1492, and the wave conversions arrived at the beginning of the 15th century.

But the other Conversos were pretending on the outside to be Catholics but were, in secret, Jews.

But neither group were "Jewish-Christians."

Yitzchak Baer identifies four types of converts: the ones who saw themselves as Jewish wholly, the ones who wanted to be fully Christian, the ones who wanted to be both and the ones who wanted to be neither (generally mixed marriage children).

Interesting articles on conversos if you have access to JStor:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/473391
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343839

[Shmarya]

You're splitting hairs.

Even in Baer's groupings, only one group could be defined as Jewish-Christian.

The wave of conversions you mention happened as persecution – capped by the expulsion and Inquisition – increased.

But most classic Conversos – meaning they converted rather than be expelled – fall into two types: 1) those who faked conversions an practiced Judaism in secret and 2) those who were true theological converts.

[Yeze]

what's your take on Sanhedrin 44a?

Which part?

This part:

in the case of Achan, why were they punished? — Because his wife and children knew thereof.1
Israel hath sinned. R. Abba b. Zabda said: Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still [called] 'Israel'.2 R. Abba said: Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.

Yea, they have even transgressed my covenant which I have commanded them, yea, they have even taken of the devoted thing and have also stolen [it], and dissembled also, and they have even put it amongst their own stuff.3 R. Ile'a said on behalf of R. Judah b. Masparta: This teaches that Achan transgressed the five books of the Torah, [for the word 'gam'4 is written there five times].

[Yeze]

You're splitting hairs.

By mentioning the fact you place the expulsion of the Jews of 1492 chronologically before the establishment of the Inquisition in Seville in 1478?

[Yeze]

*in Seville and then the Kingdom of Castille.

[Shmarya]

By mentioning the fact you place the expulsion of the Jews of 1492 chronologically before the establishment of the Inquisition in Seville in 1478?

By dicking around with something that is off topic and doesn't in any way support your case.

You know how Conversos were accepted back into the Jewish community?

With a public ceremony similar to conversion, in which they had to affirm fealty to the Jewish community and halakha.

[Yeze]

By dicking around with something that is off topic and doesn't in any way support your case.

Historical accuracy is important, wouldn't you agree?

You know how Conversos were accepted back into the Jewish community?

With a public ceremony similar to conversion, in which they had to affirm fealty to the Jewish community and halakha.

The public ceremonies many conversos endured were autos da fe, but you, inexplicably, castigate Jewish Christians for this, and use it as evidence to suggest that Jewish Christians must continue to be excluded from Jewish life because of the Spanish Inquisition.

[Shmarya]

As for your Sanhedrin 44a reference, as I noted above:

Apostates are under halakha obligated in all the commandments of Judaism (especially the negative commandments) but are entitled to none of the privileges and benefits granted to Jews by that same halakha.

So an apostate would not be counted in a minyan, given an aliya, allowed to lead services, etc. If the Jewish community has a health club, the apostate could not join or use it. If the Jewish community took a trip to Israel, the apostate could not join it.

[Shmarya]

In no way did I "castigate" Jewish-Christians for undergoing autos de fe.

What I wrote is clear, including the fact that few Conversos could be classified as "Jewish-Christians."

Past that, the reason Jewish-Christians must be excluded from public Jewish life is the because halakha excludes them from Jewish life and has done so over and over and over again for 1900 years.

[Yeze]

If the Jewish community has a health club, the apostate could not join or use it.

So Messianic Jews are a threat to Jewish health now!! What, in case he contaminates the good Jews with his apostate disease? Or sneezes and someone catches 'heresy'? Hahaha!

If the Jewish community took a trip to Israel, the apostate could not join it.

Well then you should be congratulating Birthright for screening out Messianic Jews! Instead you're seemingly worried that a man with a different opininon to theirs is going to lead Jews into heresy, which is somehow wrong, even though your image is that of a 'heretic'.

Apostates are under halakha obligated in all the commandments of Judaism (especially the negative commandments) but are entitled to none of the privileges and benefits granted to Jews by that same halakha.

Good, now you're saying what you really feel. According to your logic, Messianic Jews can come to Israel to escape anti-Semitic persecution, but once there they can't marry, be buried in a cemetery, join a minyan or even join a health club!!!

Wow. You're really showing your true colours. How are your words any different from those of the ultra-Orthodox bigots you criticise? I would never dream of implementing the reverse of this.

In fact, the reverse of this situation was implemented in Mediaeval Christianity, which is your strongest argument as to why Jews shouldn't accept Jewish Christians!

Is it really that you're morally opposed to the persecution of minorities, or is it only okay when Jews are giving it out rather than taking it?

[Shmarya]

Good, now you're saying what you really feel. According to your logic, Messianic Jews can come to Israel to escape anti-Semitic persecution, but once there they can't marry, be buried in a cemetery, join a minyan or even join a health club!!!

What mental illness do you have?

What I wrote is clear.

If the Jewish community has a health club, under halakha, a Jewish-Christian could not use it for the same reason a Jewish-Christian can't get an aliya, or lead services or receive any other communal benefits, perks, or honors.

That is what halakha says.

Israel has the right to refuse citizenship to anyone for any reason. So does the US or any other country. Democracies do it all the time.

Israel won't grant automatic Law of Return citizenship to Jewish-Christians.

It will, however, allow individual Jewish-Chrisitians to apply for citizenship outside the frame work of the Law of Return.

It allows Jewish-Chrisitians living in Israel to hold religious services and worship freely.

And it also will provide safe haven to Jewish-Christians if needed.

I've stated all this several times.

I can only attribute your inability to honestly acknowledge this to a mental illness or to willful spite.

Either way, your welcome here is worn out. Please leave.

[Michelle]

B"H

Your blog is messianic xtian trash, Yeze, and you know that the only reason you are posting here is because you are a blood-sucking soul whore. You are trying to put stumbling blocks before the blind. I cannot and will not stop telling you and everyone around you what you are. You are evil.

Leave my people alone.

[Michelle]

B"H

On your website, Yeze. That's why you post here, isn't it? To draw Jews to your god-on-a-stick?

[Michelle]

B"H

And, by the way, Chabad may have gone off the derech with the Rebbe, but they don't think the Rebbe is Hashm. Xtians have replaced Hashm with their idol.

[Asa]

Michelle: god-on-a-stick?! That's easily the funniest bit of writing I've read on this blog. I never read the guy's blog, but I've encountered a sufficient number of Born-Agains to be aware of their relentless, down-your-throat proselatizing. I'm pretty sure Shmarya's seen to it that Yeze not be back here any time soon. Don't waste your energy and cleverness, my friend. He can't pull us in.

[Mr. Apikorus]

Yeze never proselytzed anyone here. He stated he's a messianic Jew and he stated why (to some degree), but he certainly didn't proselytize.

Sure, there are those messianic Jews who get in your face about it, like Jews for Jesus of whom I have nothing but contempt, but Yeze stuck to the point and conducted himself with dignity and honor at all times.

I happen not to agree with his position, but that's irrelevant.

[Mr. Apikorus]

Michelle, refering to Jesus Christ as "God on a stick" is incredibly insulting, and totally uncalled for.

Christianity is on of the world's great religions.

Shame on you, Michelle.

[Asa]

Come on, Mr. A, you don't object to Orthodox-bashing and mockery. The comment was no more insulting than much of what's written here against haredim. That Christianity is one of the world's most popular religions is irrelevant. The comment was funny. Now, true, Yeze was not proselytyzing, and therefore Michelle's outrage was unjustified, and my own post in reply out of place. I believe her comment was an overreaction to Yeze's Jews for Jesus blog (of whatever derivation of J for J it is). But, why so protective of Christianity on a site whereon a great deal of mockery is written toward haredim?

[Mr. Apikorus]

Most Christians THESE DAYS don't try to dictate how other Christians practice their religion, or how Jews practice their religion. Therein lies the difference.

Believe it or not, Asa, I don't object to Orthodox Judaism. My paternal grandfather, whom I loved dearly, was Orthodox (not MO), but didn't dictate how anyone else should practice his or her religion. My maternal great-grandfather, who died at 97 when I was six, was a real SOB who DID dictate, or try to dictate, how his children should practice Judaism.

As a result, my maternal grandmother ran away from home (maybe I should say she left) at age 16 and came to the USA from Belarus (then Russia) by herself, in 1907. Practically unheard-of back then. Great-Grandpa followed a couple years later; settled in Jersey City while his daughter lived on the Lower East Side. She later became an atheist, or at best an agnostic, although she kept kosher, sort of, all her life.

This megillah I'm telling is that my problem with the ultra-Orthodox starts when they try to dictate how other Orthodox Jews must act, and how secular Jews such as myself must act. Being Orthodox, even Haredi, doesn't justify bashing. To each his own.

I'll let you in on a little secret: Once upon a time, I was a Kahanist myself.

[Mr. Apikorus]

To answer the rest of your question, "why am I so protective of Christianity?" goes back to my childhood. My mother, who was extremely well-educated with a Ph.D and who was a renowned molecular biologist, hated Christians, and blamed them for all the evils of the world (she was an atheist who made fun of me because I believe in God). She used to tell me that Jesus Christ was a fictional character. I later learned (before the De Vinci Code was written) that there were 74 Gospels in addition to the four in the Bible; these weren't selected because they regarded Jesus Christ as a great man, who wasn't divine. I guess when you have 78 accounts of the life of Jesus that are more or less contemporaneous at a time when just about everyone was illiterate he must have been one heck of a guy.

[alternative childcare]

Mr Aprikose, you seem to know as much about Christianity as you do about Judaism!

[Asa]

Mr. A, I appreciate where you're coming from. But I think your argument is misplaced. I believe Michelle's joke was not so much toward Jesus as toward Christianity which, like it or not, believes in Jesus as God. Therefore the God-on-a-stick comment was rather apt. Look, as I've divulged previously, my father has anti-semitic tendencies. My cousin taught me anti-semitism from a very early age, and I grew up around it. (Here's where AC resorts to calling me an anti-semite, as he once did.) Were it not for my mother, I in my youthful impressionability might have turned out like them. Now, not only am I protective of Jews, not only am I possessed of a deep affection toward them, I'm a convert to Judaism. All this is somewhat beside the point. The point is that Michelle's comment was indeed rather apt.

Jesus may indeed have been a great man, a revolutionary of sorts. I'm not entirely sure. But Christianity has turned him into a god-on-a-stick. The man you call great has absolutely not one thing to do with the religion his apostles spawned, and I doubt to my very bones that he'd approve even a lick of the religion that bears his name. If he would approve, that is no testament to his 'greatness', in fact it would argue entirely against it.

Are there good Christians? Tons! Are Jews better than Christians by default? Of course not! But don't confuse Jesus with Christianity, and don't confuse Christianity with Christians. A large numger of Christians believe passionately that all non-Christians shall eventually burn in hell. Christianity is full of nonsense. Jesus may not have been.

But do read the New Testament, Mr. A. Carefully. The great Jesus wasn't none too thrilled with non-Jews himself. Called 'em swine. He may have imparted a wise thing or two, but he blurred the line between God-worship and rebbe-worship. I could go on and on, I grew up in the religion after all. Whereas Abraham stands for free thought and independant thinking, Jesus stands for the opposite.

I'm babbling a little. My point, once more, is this: separate what needs to be separated. The God-on-a-stick comment was aimed at the tenets of the religion itself. Not at the keepers of the religion, and nor at the one who inspired the religion.

The idea of wearing the crucifix around one's neck in itself is morbid, grotesque, and stands for total irrationality. You can argue that these are my beliefs, yes. But if Christian fundamentalists are allowed to say that Jews shall burn in hell unless they 'take Christ into their hearts', little old Michelle can call Christianity God-on-a-stick and be a-okay, at least in my book.

[Mr. Apikorus]

Michelle can say whatever the hell she wants. And I'm going to call her out for saying it.

The vast majority of Christians don't believe that Jews are going to hell, nor do they still believe the Jews killed Christ.

There was a heck of a lot of anti-Christian sentiment among the Jews of the first and second centuries AD, including among the great sages, and it's not something we Jews ought to be proud of.

[Asa]

OK, Mr. A.

[Mr. Apikorus]

When one says "God on a stick," I consider that mocking the horrific murder of a man for religious reasons.

That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject

[Asa]

Mr. A, as I wrote, I get where you're coming from, and I related to what you wrote above with a similar experience from my own youth. I simply felt that your argument was misplaced, and went on (perhaps too lengthily) to explain my reasons why. I never said you didn't have a write to call out another poster on something you found offensive. I just think that you've taken her comment the wrong way. I have no doubt she was not referring to the man's murder at all, which is obvious to me by her use of the word 'god' rather than 'man'.

Had she written 'man on a stick', I might have, like you, taken it to be a mockery of the murder. Her use of the word 'god', to me, was a clear mockery of the tenets of the religion, since by definition gods are immortal and cannot be murdered. You're looking at Jesus as a man who was assassinated by religious intolerants, which is never ever acceptable to anyone with a shred of moral, ethical decency.

That's my explanation, and my opinion, to which, like you, I have a right.