Many were till the Industrial Revolution, that is simple fact, and the Jewish people didn't follow all the same stupid tenants early Christians did, so they didn't handicap themselves like early Christians did.
It's not the Jews fault early Christians were stupid about a lot of things.
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. Yes Jewish people did follow the same stupid tenants as early Christians. Unless you are saying that not being ok with doing evil actions to foreigners is a stupid thing.
Tell me is rape of foreign people ok? Human trafficking alright?
Christians, Jews, and Muslims prohibit oppressing, enslaving, or charging interest to your brother. The difference is when you ask them who is your brother, a Christian will say all of mankind, while a Muslim and Jew won't have all of humans to have that equal moral worth.
Hmm, 'whataboutism' and trying to play a 'mirror gatacha' by twisting context instead of dealing with the actual issue at hand.
Standard King Arts dishonest debate and troll tactics.
Also rather similar to Zeno's attempt at 'whataboutism', and given your record on Israel and Jewish issues, not a surprise either.
It's not whataboutism. Free Stater brought up usury and that being one reason people disliked Jews in the past. There are two reasons for people to dislike Jews(back in the middle ages for usury) the first is for usury itself because this is wrong to people. Now this first reason you might not understand if you are ok with usury. But the second reason any intelligent person who does not believe in double standards should understand.
The second reason why someone would dislike medieval Jews who engaged in usury is because they can see that Jews at the time thought of usury as an evil act, comparable to slavery or murder yet were ok with doing it to non Jews.
So giving an hypothetical is not whataboutism it's tying to make you see by analogy.
For instance you are against the Trans grooming thing, and you dislike the leftists that promote it, but let's pretend Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and Muslims make a deal with the Democrat establishment. We get to be free of the whole LGBT grooming thing, but for this bennefit we now support childhood transitions for those who are not part of our religion. So now we support laws and enforce policies that make protestants or non religious people like you have to accept trans propaganda towards you kids. Sure you hate this. But wouldn't you feel much more dislike for us than the woke liberals since we know what we are doing is evil but are doing it for our bennefit to screw you over?
In some cases long term chemical contamination is worse. Wind blows the wrong way and suddenly you are the one attacked.
Also your soldiers now taking the attacked territory have to watch their every fucking move and work in chem suits or they get slimed with nerve gas.
The same problems can also be solved with explosives (WW2) or with napalm (Vietnam), or like Israelis do now, plain seawater.
Then why did we not use it in Afghanistan? Also doesn't the type of chemical weapon matte? Some of them don't last as long?
>able
No, rarely, that's a favor, like if you take a loan from an uncle or something like that.
Usually they would do the same thing smart Muslims do now, rule lawyer the shit to a point where they effectively get something very similar to a normal loan with interest but worded in a different and more complicated way.
I know Muslims do some stuff like that. But if Jews did that to Christians instead of just flat out usury it might have made things better, so Christians could see that they were protected under old testament laws instead of being treated as a foreigner.
But that hits a major problem in the effect of, if most people do it, who is really getting shunned, and who is doing the shunning?
Like, do you mind getting shunned by fucking communists? Pedophiles? Dumb junkies?
Likewise, rich medieval merchants may not necessarily care that much about being shunned by the kind of people who cared a lot about it (zealots and dumb peasants).
For one nobles and other rulers really couldn't shun them because they are the ones who have the most use for loans for big investment purposes.
Do you not understand how people work Marduk? Humans are a social species. We need interaction with others, if you were stuck in prison with a bunch of shitty criminals yes you would want to interact with them instead of being alone in a cell without speaking to any of them. Obviously you'd prefer to spend time with others who aren't Commies, but if you can't and everyone who isn't a Commie is dead or you can't get to them, you'd rather interact with commies then stay alone for months.
And then rule lawyered around it anyway. Though this example shows the pragmatic argument, that we also use until today - favor tribe/family/clan, but for strangers, how distant exactly being a minor detail, it's pure business. And in modern age, when societies aren't tribes of few hundreds to few thousands, there are more complexities and degrees to who's a stranger.
Maybe a cousin, uncle or other relative will give you an interest free loan, but if you go to a guy from 2 provinces away who you never saw before but he happens to own a bank, the answer is gonna be hell no. Of course back when Jews were very few in number, pretty much a tribe, it could viably operate on the former system widely among themselves.
Well if they are acting as a foreign group who is favoring themselves that is another reason why many locals would not like them getting wealthy in their lands.
Most of that problem is that even if we don't care about wh
And there was recently some controversy with people going to Thailand and possibly screwing underage prostitutes, most countries don't care, even some western ones, i think it was Sweden
who did criminalize it. Either way, you won't necessarily trust those guys even when they come back, so there's also a non-universalist argument.
This is a dumb argument and can be used for all crimes from killing prisoners of war, to raping grown women, to whatever. Also Israel doesn't seem to agree with you as they do protect Jewish criminals who run to Israel (doesen't matter if they are rapists, or commie secret police) and ask for citizenship. They don't seem to think they will be a danger to their own people.
Again, not necessarily. We don't like these people because they are dangerous to the people they are around, we know that, and if they want to be around us...
Still, most countries do not go out of their way to pursue crimes committed by own citizens under law of a different land, especially if those aren't crimes in that land. For example many Poles go to Netherlands and buy and smoke weed there, even though it's illegal in Poland, no one in Poland gives a fuck.
Again most Poles don't really give a shit about weed one way or another. They would not riot if it was legal in Poland.
It's not that rare at all, of course stuff like communists are a threat to everyone else too, but it's not uncommon for, say, someone to win a war and then make the loser limit their military severely or forbid them from having some industry, expanding ports or something like that.
There is a bit of a differance as while they put limits, they don't try to run the other nations into the ground. I mean I can't think of many countries putting the likes of Oscar Direrlewanger as their puppet to nations they occupy.
And here we hit the elephant in the room, very few societies are completely united and in agreement about such things. Even if half the society hates you, well then you will probably be hiring security from the other half, and if you are this rich and powerful in that scenario there's no shortage of people who are willing to support you even if many won't.
I mean usury was not a 50/50 split. It was pretty unanimous.
Which was objectively false because my point was never that all Christains where dirty peasants note that I made reference to the Lords, Kings and pointed out among other things that it was being outcast and wealth that made these people suspicious and envious of the Jews leading to the concept of Antisemitism.
But apparently not being able to actually debate that you latch onto it and insinuate that I imply that all Christians were dirty and ignorant pheasants rather than actual flawed human beings.
It sounded like you were insulting all Christians at that time were dirty bigots, and the Jews at the time were innocent, and any conflict was the fault of the Christians.
Note that I never at any point in any of the above post argue that Jews could commit usury against other Jews so you haven't done anything by this point to even warrant debating something I point out to you in the next post.
You were bringing up usury as why Christians hated Jews. I was arguing on behalf of the Christians why Christians would be justified for being angry at the way the Jews were engaging in money lending.
The fact they don't commit usury against fellow Jews is relavent.
So your entire augment is really pointless nitpicking.
It's not pointless nitpicking look at the last post addressed to Bacle the reasons behind other people's actions matter. Doing something evil that you think is good is different from doing something and knowing it is evil.
Usury doesn't 'harm' anyone, if you take a damn loan with interest owed nobody made you take it, and it definitely doesn't give anyone any worthwhile justification to hate on a particular group of people to the point that some feel they should be collectively exterminated.
Manifestly false. Usury takes advantage of one persons weakness to enrich yourself at their loss. It is a harm and Christians since the start of the religion have considered it a sin, until weirdo protestant sects have "interpreted" otherwise. Honestly those interpretations are crap and are just as legitimate as the gay affirming church's.
lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.
www.biblegateway.com
lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.
Ezekiel 18:13
Let me ignore your analogy because selling people into slavery and collecting interest from a party which willingly agreed to pay you interest are not in any way moral equivalents.
So you aren't going to interact in good faith?
Well if you don't have the mental capacity to understand analogy then can you accept usury is a sin for the sake of the argument?
Yeah, but a problem with any book is that it's meaning may be up to interpretation, and I am not following whatever antisemitic interpretation you subscribe to so deal with it. If Jesus blamed them for his death and felt revenge was worth taking on the Jews or that they were the foremost enemy of Christendom he would have mentioned it before leaving us at The Mount of Olives.
Really interpretation? Might as well say that you interpret the Bible so gay relations aren't a sin.
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to...
www.biblegateway.com
Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath has overtaken them at last.
Oh and this is Jesus himself in John 8:37-42
I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.” “Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were...
www.biblegateway.com
Yes, I can! Because I was speaking was a matter of historic fact not an insult, medieval Christian pheasants did wash themselves but unlike the Jews there was no ritualization of the practice and the outlook of the Middle Ages from both Jews and Christians concerning disease was that diseased were caused by 'Bad Smells' there were actually may attempts to keep towns of this time as clean as possible and the idea that peasants didn't wash at all is an outright lie.
However, despite what I said above it doesn't deny the fact that Jews inadvertently suffered from less diseases because their religious practices Jews are required to wash their hands before every meal, they consume it isn't an option and while many Christains of the medival ages also did so before and after meals it was less ritualized (Their were even depths of what was considered unclean in Jewish law) and it was not an outright religious requirement, beyond that even then Jews being segregated from society in ghettos made them less susceptible to disease.
So, nothing I stated was an outright lie and none of what I said was a condemnation either Christians of the time weren't unclean just unclean by different metrics and Jews of the same time share the same scientific belief that felt that disease spread via 'bad smells' but the fact was one group possessed an unknown advantage in being more isolated and having a more ritualized way of keeping themselves clean before ingesting food which inadvertently helped them survive disease outbreaks, but it also made them the target of suspicion of people already jealous of their growing wealth.
Or am I wrong?
I haven't seen much scientific proof that Jews survived plagues at a higher rate that gentiles that lived in the same nation. But you are being much more mild now then you were before. This quote here is not objectionable like your first one was. This what I'm quoting before is not insulting to Christians like the previous one was. So I have to say that. If you just said what you are saying now, THEN this whole conversation would not have happened.
