Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2016, 02:33 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Yes, I believe Dawkins is relying on a mistranslated version of the Hebrew bible. –Actually, my initial post might have more accurately said, “mistranslated, misunderstood and very skewed” version of the Hebrew Bible. Which is not to say that every verse he’s reading will be mistranslated, but the overarching main ideas in the Christian bible are very distorted from the original Hebrew reading (and understanding) due to mistranslations, most of which are deliberate. This is a real point of contention within the Jewish community because people who have no education on Judaism or appreciation of the vast differences between Judaism and Christianity hold us accountable for their Christian-based understanding of the Hebrew Bible.

Rabbi Sacks probably wants people to understand that the explanation that Dawkins is providing in his book about Jewish texts is not in any way representative of the Jewish teachings or the view that Jews hold about G-d. Sadly, this doesn’t go without saying.

The thing is, Dawkins rarely mentions Jewish people in this specific book (I've read it) and he is mostly talking about the Old Testament (not called "Hebrew Bible" in the book) on which the Christian religion is based. I'm like 99.999% certain that he meant it to be read as a basis for his criticism on Christianity and not Judaism.

(24-01-2016 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Mistranslations in the bible have painted Jews out to be a stupid, stubborn group of people who, according to Christianity, are too dumb to look in their own book to see that the “truth” of Jesus Christ is painted all throughout the scriptures as plain as day. We have been characterized as being dishonest and devious for refusing to recognize their messiah, and this characterization has turned the Jews into a scapegoat which has resulted in mass expulsions from entire countries, torture, pogroms, death and genocide.

Even though the events that Rabbi Sacks mentioned occurred 1000 years ago, they’re a part of our history and we note that the patterns have repeated themselves over and over. My grandparents, and the parents or grandparents of almost every Jewish person I know were impacted by anti-Semitism which can very easily be traced back to long-held Christian attitudes about Jews. These problems are not limited to a by-gone era that perhaps warrants some of the sting being eased over time. The wounds have been reopened every few generations and there are people alive today who have been personally affected by them.

I understand, and what you're saying is definitely true. However, I don't think that a single comment on a single book is such a big deal. This guy seemed to be as offended as feminists who get offended when they see a naked woman on TV.

(24-01-2016 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:  To be clear, I think Dawkins should not have to go gentle on any one group of people. His views are his views, and he’s entitled to have them and spread them at will (I exercise my right to not purchase or read his book). While I’m of the opinion that Dawkins tends to go overboard with his characterizations, if he is indelicate with everyone else, he should be as equally indelicate with the Jews.

Rabbi Sacks didn’t need to comment on this at all. I generally take the position that we (all of us) need to have a thicker skin and be able to handle a little criticism with grace and decorum.

To Rabbi Sack’s point, though, if you’re going to hate our theology, at least hate it for what it actually is and not Christians tell you it is. –I think that’s the nuts and bolts of what the Rabbi was really trying to convey.

Again, I'm pretty sure Dawkins was aiming at Christians with that specific excerpt. That is why he says the "god of the Old Testament" and not the "god of the Hebrew bible" (he goes on to talk about "the Bible", "the Christian God" and "Jesus"). Plus, it was Rabbi Sacks who used the word "anti-semitism", which was rather extreme.

Besides, in the following lines, Dawkins says "I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan", which makes it clear that it's not an attack against Jews, which Rabbi Sacks would have known, hadn't he stopped reading because of his biases.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like undergroundp's post
24-01-2016, 02:57 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 02:33 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Yes, I believe Dawkins is relying on a mistranslated version of the Hebrew bible. –Actually, my initial post might have more accurately said, “mistranslated, misunderstood and very skewed” version of the Hebrew Bible. Which is not to say that every verse he’s reading will be mistranslated, but the overarching main ideas in the Christian bible are very distorted from the original Hebrew reading (and understanding) due to mistranslations, most of which are deliberate. This is a real point of contention within the Jewish community because people who have no education on Judaism or appreciation of the vast differences between Judaism and Christianity hold us accountable for their Christian-based understanding of the Hebrew Bible.

Rabbi Sacks probably wants people to understand that the explanation that Dawkins is providing in his book about Jewish texts is not in any way representative of the Jewish teachings or the view that Jews hold about G-d. Sadly, this doesn’t go without saying.

The thing is, Dawkins rarely mentions Jewish people in this specific book (I've read it) and he is mostly talking about the Old Testament (not called "Hebrew Bible" in the book) on which the Christian religion is based. I'm like 99.999% certain that he meant it to be read as a basis for his criticism on Christianity and not Judaism.

(24-01-2016 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Mistranslations in the bible have painted Jews out to be a stupid, stubborn group of people who, according to Christianity, are too dumb to look in their own book to see that the “truth” of Jesus Christ is painted all throughout the scriptures as plain as day. We have been characterized as being dishonest and devious for refusing to recognize their messiah, and this characterization has turned the Jews into a scapegoat which has resulted in mass expulsions from entire countries, torture, pogroms, death and genocide.

Even though the events that Rabbi Sacks mentioned occurred 1000 years ago, they’re a part of our history and we note that the patterns have repeated themselves over and over. My grandparents, and the parents or grandparents of almost every Jewish person I know were impacted by anti-Semitism which can very easily be traced back to long-held Christian attitudes about Jews. These problems are not limited to a by-gone era that perhaps warrants some of the sting being eased over time. The wounds have been reopened every few generations and there are people alive today who have been personally affected by them.

I understand, and what you're saying is definitely true. However, I don't think that a single comment on a single book is such a big deal. This guy seemed to be as offended as feminists who get offended when they see a naked woman on TV.

(24-01-2016 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:  To be clear, I think Dawkins should not have to go gentle on any one group of people. His views are his views, and he’s entitled to have them and spread them at will (I exercise my right to not purchase or read his book). While I’m of the opinion that Dawkins tends to go overboard with his characterizations, if he is indelicate with everyone else, he should be as equally indelicate with the Jews.

Rabbi Sacks didn’t need to comment on this at all. I generally take the position that we (all of us) need to have a thicker skin and be able to handle a little criticism with grace and decorum.

To Rabbi Sack’s point, though, if you’re going to hate our theology, at least hate it for what it actually is and not Christians tell you it is. –I think that’s the nuts and bolts of what the Rabbi was really trying to convey.

Again, I'm pretty sure Dawkins was aiming at Christians with that specific excerpt. That is why he says the "god of the Old Testament" and not the "god of the Hebrew bible" (he goes on to talk about "the Bible", "the Christian God" and "Jesus"). Plus, it was Rabbi Sacks who used the word "anti-semitism", which was rather extreme.

Besides, in the following lines, Dawkins says "I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Wotan", which makes it clear that it's not an attack against Jews, which Rabbi Sacks would have known, hadn't he stopped reading because of his biases.

I happen to agree with you. Dawkins has no history of verbally attacking Jews. His contempt for religion is universal, but when he presents his material, it always assumes the Christian viewpoint. While I understand (and share) Rabbi Sack's concerns about not wanting Judaism to be lumped together with Christianity, he really shouldn't have gotten involved.

Dawkin's characterizations of the bible are, in my opinion, childish and ridiculous, but they're not anti-semitic. As Banjo pointed out, we can't escalate everything to an "anti-semitic attack." It causes resentment and desensitizes the world to actual anti-semitic issues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
24-01-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 02:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 06:28 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  No sorry Jews, this has nothing to do with wanting genocide of human beings in real life. I am sorry it bothers Jews that atheist go after your books of myth too. This is strictly a book review, like a bad movie or bad book. Nobody should want any group wiped out in real life, but you don't get to set up taboos to avoid criticism of bad claims.

The god character Yahweh is a tribal gang leader, no not the way humans want to view him, but a tribal leader because of the REAL life humans lived in BACK THEN, in tribal kingships, back then humans lived in very tribal groups and BACK THEN the tribe followed the king and loyalty was expected, BACK THEN.

On top of that Hebrews simply took a polytheistic lesser god of the Canaanites Yahweh, and took this polytheistic lesser god, under the head god EL who was head TOP GOD of the divine family, and took Yahweh and made him the only god.

This god was a warrior god, reflecting the tribal rivalries between REAL tribes back then. It is not that atheists say this out of hate of human rights, we say this as a criticism of taking ANY god claim literally as fact. ALL religions get upset needlessly in reality when you simply say "That is not the way it happened in reality". Just like when Muslims claim they will get 72 virgins, or when Christians claim a man can survive rigor mortis. We criticize ALL religions, and I find it sick that Jews out of all the religions in the world would forget what lack of questioning does.

Ann Frank would NOT be happy with some Jews considering the silence of criticism that lead German Christians to slaughter 6 million Jews. I do not think she would be happy with some Jews hiding behind the Holocaust to avoid criticism. "That is not true", or "Your character is not as nice as you'd like to paint him", is not the same as saying "get ride of everyone in real life". NO NO NO NO, and knock it off.

Jews don't get a pass anymore than they give Muslims on their claims, anymore than Christians should on their claims. NOBODY should call for the genocide of any group, but that does not give the book or the claims that people derive from them a pass.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion...h-God.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

" Yahweh is a warrior for his people, a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths"

In most of antiquity in polytheism also, it was a common flaw in human thought to attribute the success of conquest to the divine. You can find the idea of the divine intervening in human affairs in all of antiquity.

Is it wrong that this only wants to make me convert to Judaism even more? Hobo .... goddam Jews. Always spoiling shit and whatnot.

What is the point of this when I'm working so diligently to get all the Jews to convert to B-bism?

All hail B-b!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
24-01-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 02:12 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 10:47 AM)undergroundp Wrote:  Dawkins' description of the Old Testament's god is based on mistranslations?

Yes, I believe Dawkins is relying on a mistranslated version of the Hebrew bible. –Actually, my initial post might have more accurately said, “mistranslated, misunderstood and very skewed” version of the Hebrew Bible.

Nope. Dawkins specifically references the Christian Old Testament:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-01-2016, 05:15 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 02:57 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Dawkin's characterizations of the bible are, in my opinion, childish and ridiculous, but they're not anti-semitic. As Banjo pointed out, we can't escalate everything to an "anti-semitic attack." It causes resentment and desensitizes the world to actual anti-semitic issues.

How are his characterizations of the bible childish and ridiculous, since they accurately describe the Yahweh of the Old Testament? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2016, 05:36 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 02:57 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Dawkin's characterizations of the bible are, in my opinion, childish and ridiculous, but they're not anti-semitic. As Banjo pointed out, we can't escalate everything to an "anti-semitic attack." It causes resentment and desensitizes the world to actual anti-semitic issues.

How are his characterizations of the bible childish and ridiculous, since they accurately describe the Yahweh of the Old Testament? Consider

I just think he could choose to be more mature about it. If I was in Dawkin's shoes, I'd approach the problem of communicating my ideas with a 'you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar' attitude. I think putting people on the defensive -to the degree which I think Dawkins does- is counterproductive to getting people to let their guard down and listen to a different viewpoint.

With that said, I recently watched a very intriguing video posted to YouTube which made a very compelling argument about why atheists shouldn't be polite. I thought the speaker did an excellent job of getting her point across.

Still, Dawkins doesn't present his material in a way that I like. For that reason, I tend not to read his stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
24-01-2016, 05:42 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 05:36 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  How are his characterizations of the bible childish and ridiculous, since they accurately describe the Yahweh of the Old Testament? Consider

I just think he could choose to be more mature about it. If I was in Dawkin's shoes, I'd approach the problem of communicating my ideas with a 'you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar' attitude. I think putting people on the defensive -to the degree which I think Dawkins does- is counterproductive to getting people to let their guard down and listen to a different viewpoint.

With that said, I recently watched a very intriguing video posted to YouTube which made a very compelling argument about why atheists shouldn't be polite. I thought the speaker did an excellent job of getting her point across.

Still, Dawkins doesn't present his material in a way that I like. For that reason, I tend not to read his stuff.

While he makes many good arguments in The God Delusion, it is certainly not done in a religion-friendly manner nor in a manner intended to mollify the religious.
It is honest, even brutally honest.

Have you read any of his books on evolution? Consider

He is an excellent science author and has written some the clearest and most compelling books on evolution.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-01-2016, 05:45 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 05:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 05:36 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I just think he could choose to be more mature about it. If I was in Dawkin's shoes, I'd approach the problem of communicating my ideas with a 'you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar' attitude. I think putting people on the defensive -to the degree which I think Dawkins does- is counterproductive to getting people to let their guard down and listen to a different viewpoint.

With that said, I recently watched a very intriguing video posted to YouTube which made a very compelling argument about why atheists shouldn't be polite. I thought the speaker did an excellent job of getting her point across.

Still, Dawkins doesn't present his material in a way that I like. For that reason, I tend not to read his stuff.

While he makes many good arguments in The God Delusion, it is certainly not done in a religion-friendly manner nor in a manner intended to mollify the religious.
It is honest, even brutally honest.

Have you read any of his books on evolution? Consider

He is an excellent science author and has written some the clearest and most compelling books on evolution.

Actually, I have read some of his stuff on evolution. I was discounting that when I said that I never read anything from him because I was too focused on his religious views. Considering his education and professional field, I find him highly trustworthy in this regard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
24-01-2016, 05:47 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 05:45 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 05:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  While he makes many good arguments in The God Delusion, it is certainly not done in a religion-friendly manner nor in a manner intended to mollify the religious.
It is honest, even brutally honest.

Have you read any of his books on evolution? Consider

He is an excellent science author and has written some the clearest and most compelling books on evolution.

Actually, I have read some of his stuff on evolution. I was discounting that when I said that I never read anything from him because I was too focused on his religious views. Considering his education and professional field, I find him highly trustworthy in this regard.

Can't say fairer than that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-01-2016, 06:20 PM
RE: Rabbi falsely calls Dawkins anti Semite.
(24-01-2016 05:36 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 05:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  How are his characterizations of the bible childish and ridiculous, since they accurately describe the Yahweh of the Old Testament? Consider

I just think he could choose to be more mature about it. If I was in Dawkin's shoes, I'd approach the problem of communicating my ideas with a 'you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar' attitude. I think putting people on the defensive -to the degree which I think Dawkins does- is counterproductive to getting people to let their guard down and listen to a different viewpoint.

He's no apologist. He affirms a lot of atheists who were previously scared to speak up. He puts
into words what a lot of us think or have thought. He is not concerned with making atheism palatable to religious folk. Instead, he gives many of us a voice.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: