The Holocaust--Which One?

I've been reading A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman. This is a history of the 14th century. There are several things that are not taught in high school and even college history that bears thinking about. One thing that I did not realize until I visited Prague, is that the Holocaust that we are taught happened around World War II is merely one of the most recent. The 14th Century brought a Holocaust against the Jewish population that all but wiped it out. The thought at that time was that the Jews were poisoning the wells in order to kill the world. It didn't seem to matter that the Jews also were dying from the plague. The Jew was attacked because they rejected Christ as Saviour, resulting that the Jewish peoples were separated as much as possible from the rest of the "Christian" world. What began with the crusades has continued even to today. These Jews were given the role of moneylender, denied membership in craft guilds, and were also not allowed to serve as doctors to Christians, to intermarry, to sell clothing to Christians, or to deliver or receive goods. Of course, the Christians wanted to know if they were dealing with a Jew, so the Church demanded the Jew wear a (usually yellow) circular patch.(Sound familiar?) In Prague, the Jew was contained inside a specific area, called the ghetto. The ghetto was originally an area in Venice where the iron foundries were and were where the Venetian Jew was contained. All over Europe the Jewish peoples were treated poorly and when it was supposed that they caused the Black Plague they were slaughtered by the hundreds.

It is estimated that about one third of the known population perished as a result, directly or indirectly, of the Plague.

It is supposed that we study history because we are to learn from our past mistakes, but what I have seen as I read this book is that history repeats and repeats and repeats. What have we learned, other than how to "improve" on the past mistakes? Another thing that really bothers me about reading this history chronicle is that the Christian Church has played a disturbing role. A student of history could easily be turned against anything related to the Church. It appears that the Church has gotten far from what Christ originally intended. Oh yes, you may argue that things have changed, but as I read, I found the same dynamics nowadays as back then. The characters have changed, but Protestant and Catholic churches alike are still using the tactics from the early centuries. Politics are hidden, but still very much alive within the higher church echelons and many denominations concern themselves with following rules which they have determined as important to acquire entry to heaven.

Christ preached a simple gospel, love God and love others. Why do we have to make it so difficult?

Radical Living

I have determined that I am a radical. If people define being a radical as favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms, yes, I fit the category. Those who would be most likely to tag me as radical, however, would be from the church. You know, those who preach love for each other, yet can't find it in themselves to support a social gospel. The excuse of being "in the world, but not part of it" doesn't fly with me. I, personally, see Christ as dispensing social gospel with abandon. I do not, however, see the Church following His example. Granted, there are those in the Church that attempt to reach out to others, but many times, unless they "do things way the Church wants them done" they find themselves abandoned and condemned. Too many times, the Church condemns those who try to help others. Where do you think the Church would have stood on social gospel issues, were they to rule on Jesus healing the man at the Pool of Bethsaida? If you read the gospels closely, you can clearly see where the church stood. Remember the reaction of the Scribes and Pharisees on so many occasions, when Christ didn't "follow the rules"?

I've gotten so frustrated with attending a church that preaches love and then kicks those who try to show it to others. Okay, let's get a bit more to the point. How would you handle it if the realtor you were going to hire turned out to be obviously homosexual? On the other hand, what if he was homosexual and you didn't know it? How would you react? The same, or differently? What if you knew the person talking to you after the church service was a prostitute? How would you treat them if you didn't know?

The gospel Christ preached (and actually lived) cared about people---all people, not just the "acceptable" people. He didn't walk by and look at the people with sadness and then promise a prayer. He got down to their pain and worked to relieve it.

Why might it be considered bad to be a radical, or to be passionate about something? I think whenever someone has the passion to change things, others feel condemned, threatened, and the light that shines in their world exposes their lack of love for others. As a result, it behoves them to shut the passionate radical down.

I see a tremendous need for the "social gospel". Note, I did not say I see a need for people to be preached at. They can't hear the words, if the deeds are screaming louder. There is a great need for society to SEE who Christ is. "Inasmuch, do to others.....feed, clothe, shelter, comfort. . . ."

Our challenge? LOVE in ACTION!!!

Semantics or Truth?

Critical or judgmental, what is the difference? Semantics? Isn't it like saying plump instead of fat, downsized instead of fired, or complimentary instead of free? Perhaps it's an exercise in our ability to say the same thing several different ways. Being "downsized" or "reallocated" doesn't make you any less "fired". Perhaps, at least in this instance, it serves to assuage the conscience of those doing the firing. Calling an egg an oval sphere does not make it a less an egg, but to those who don't eat eggs it may sound a bit less revolting. Read between the lines, folks. Truth be told, using politically correct nomenclature serves to insult the listener since it presumes that they are not able to deal with unadulterated truth. Why pussyfoot around an issue? The leading rationale is to avoid hurting someones feelings---or in the interest of sensitivity. Which would you rather have, the doctor tell you you have lung cancer or to say you have some respiratory issues? Don't we all, even if it is difficult to accept, want the plain and simple truth in understandable words? I say, let me decide what to do with the truth instead of treating me like a fragile idiot. There are ways to soften the truth and granted, some words have sharp corners, but here is where you use love and thoughtfulness. I propose that using politically correct language replaces relationship. Rather than taking time to communicate, the words are packaged in such a way that there is more "bang for the buck" and the speaker can more quickly move on without the entanglement of immediate reaction. By the time the person figures out what the speaker really said, the speaker can literally be across the country. The protection instead of being for the recipient is for the speaker. So, next time someone attempts to feed you some politically correct crap, stop them, ask them what they are REALLY trying to say, and pity them for being afraid of your response so much that they insult you by assuming you are not "adult" enough to handle the truth as well as them not being "caring" enough to be there for you through the incident.