Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (17455)	2/5/1998 2:44:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You're learning; I don't cite myself as an expert.

To: Grainne who wrote (17455)	2/5/1998 3:27:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Apparently it never occurred to Carol Christ that the authors of the New Testament were ethnic and racial Jews themselves, and so their usage of the term "the Jews" could hardly be the racial usage of the Nazis some 2,000 years later; in fact, the particular verse refers to the Jewish religious and political leadership, as opposed to their Roman overlords. The idea of "the Jews" being "the other" wouldn't even be possible until many years later when ethnic Jews moved into northern and western European lands. Even a meager knowledge of Christian theology would inform Dr Christ that Jesus' death is necessary to Christian ideas of salvation, and so "blaming the Jews" is nonsense; Jesus halted Peter's attempt to interfere with the crucifixion, and Paul writes that we would have no hope if there had been no crucifixion. Moreover, crucifixion was a Roman method of execution, stoning being the Jewish, and the crucifixion was in fact carried out by the Roman authorities. Maybe Dr Christ should study Christian theology before giving us the benefit of her learning.

To: Grainne who wrote (17455)	2/5/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 108807

I think most of us are intelligent enough here to pull sources of all sorts off the web, and sort out what is absolute drivel and what might be something we disagree with but is fascinating to discuss, without using ad hominem arguments to dispute every tiny bit of information and opinion sourced from anyone writing anything out of their peer-reviewed area of specialty. It would be quite boring here if we followed your rules!!! The first thing any scholar does when reading any other scholar (if we don't know him) is to check his credentials. Nothing ad hominem about it. Everybody's got a cv. Actually I'd like to see Hakeem's. Post it? Where'd he get his degrees? I hate to be a snob (though you know I'm elitist) but really, criminology as a field of study is more than a bit intellectually downmarket. There are, of course, historians who treat the subject (see the interesting publications in the Rutgers Crime and Deviance series) but taht's scarcely the same thing.