Oddbean

I think it is a mistake to blame 'all' Jews. To me, it looks like the Khazars assumed the identity and use Jews as scapegoats in order to impose their will and subvert the world. Perhaps this is another psyop, but it does seem like a lot of information points to this being the case. When Zionists are calling other Jews residing in Israel 'antisemites' for criticizing their actions, it's clear that something is not adding up. The issue I see is that innocent Jewish people will be caught up in the growing disdain people have for the conduct of Zionists, seeing as there doesn't seem to be much room for nuance.

The biggest critics of Zionism are the Jews that didn't go. They're not all bad... In fact, I'd like to learn from them. They've maintained traditions - specifically symbolic meaning - that I think are key to understanding.... something. Antisemitism is dangerous not only because it can lead to violence, but also because it doesn't stop with the people calling themselves Jewish. Christians are a kind of Jew. I would argue that Christians are the true Jews, and Paul wrote some stuff that would support that - but of course, I understand that non-Christian Jews would disagree. So anyways, pointing out the false Jews has to be nuanced - the point is to course correct, not hurt people.

Yep, Christianity is the continuation of 2nd temple Judaism. Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism is a relatively new "religion" that was created with intent to vehemently oppose the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The same can be said of Islam. https://image.nostr.build/43232e20fb300e61f8df9bff838586e60ff1ffab020449d640cb6bf06c210791.jpg

Yeah I saw your post today about the Talmud. It seemed like it fit quite well with what early protestants said - that the Pope is "the" Antichrist (Quotes because I'm not sure if a definite article is theologically sensible). I've had a hypothesis, which I can't verify because I don't know enough, that Islam was really an outgrowth of iconoclasm. It seems like it sprang into being at a time when the church was having that fight. Their destruction of any human image in art seems like a reaction to idolatry, whether the supposed idolatry is in Christianity or other religions. And that Orthodox thing with the desert fathers - the only desert around is where Islam started.

Some relevant reads https://image.nostr.build/1ca9f2b83e4aca1b2028d2109b62d43c6aa6d0e4124634914d7727b8232ce023.jpg https://image.nostr.build/8c9a9ebbfb017e193cc6c92b9b8ad0cacc7c938e432f23f2a0f3b663933362a5.jpg

Ha, that's funny how St. John of Damascus won by being in Muslim lands, won against the Muslim position. Anyways, its nuanced. I do think veneration is the same as idolatry, but I also can't be an iconoclast because I would never smash art. The paintings inside Orthodox churches are really interesting, sometimes even beautiful, but I don't see any need to bow and scrape before them. Just... Have art.

Admittedly, iconography was a very difficult hurdle for me when it came to Orthodox Christianity, but it occurred to me that, to deny the icon, is to deny the incarnation....which is what Muslims and rabbinic jews do. God, for his own reasons, decided to use the material to bring forth His divine revelation. This idea also coincides with the Holy Eucharist...it's not just a symbol but His actual body and blood.

Ehh.. This is evolving into a much bigger thing... I disagree that the Eucharist is Christ's 'actual' body and blood. The tradition is only useful as long as the meaning is understood. And there may be a lot more meaning than I can think of... If taking the Eucharist represents living and breathing Christ's teaching, and you actually do what he said to do, then it is meaningful. If it gets all messed up with a demand that believers take it literally, holding multiple irreconcilable beliefs simultaneously, then the meaning is lost. In that case I feel pretty confident in saying that Jesus would tell you to cut it out. And I guess I have to balance this out by also criticizing the evangelical belief that all you have to do is confess belief and you'll be saved. Jesus said what you have to do to be saved. Its not just say the magic words. The Eucharist should be a reminder of that. But also, no way I'm putting that spoon in my mouth that everyone already put in their mouth. That's gross.

Yeah I could read it. My difference in understanding is simply this : the symbolic is rational. To call a thing symbolic is not to lower it in any way - the opposite, actually. Matter has no meaning all by itself. It takes human understanding to see meaning, which means that symbolism is the primary reality we inhabit. Everything is symbolic, no matter how much anyone tries to pretend that it isn't. It seemed like the reformers contradicted themselves by saying the bread and wine are just matter but simultaneously saying they're symbolic. All things are symbolic. Matter may be matter, but before matter can be a thing, it must be a symbol, conform to a symbol commonly held. The symbol sits between your comprehension and the real thing - such that no one has ever seen any real things. Only symbols. But likewise, the earthly church seems to have invented some nonsense... The first of the three numbered paragraphs says that Jesus spoke symbolically, then says that this particular part isn't symbolic simply because Jesus didn't say its symbolic. He never said anything was symbolic, as far as I can recall. What about the part where he fed the crowd with bread and fish, then had his disciples collect the crumbs, asked how many baskets were left over, and they said seven, and he responds with (something like), "don't you understand?" I'm not sure what the symbolism was, but it was obviously symbolic. I'm not saying the material happening didn't happen. This is the problem with these discussions : people understand by reduction, when they should understand by expansion. I think the material event did occur. But I also think the symbolic event is the thing of primary importance. So anyways... Eucharist. It also seems like its supposed to be any time people eat together, not a big religious event. I don't think God actually likes religion, tbh.

Accurate but jewdaism is a symptom of a disease that will always be with Mankind and thus attract the mentally diseased Before they were jews they were Phoenicians and before that they were an odd nomadic assyrian tribe It's not the name It's the thinking Khazars were just turks who adopted it and MAXXED it out Even jews only got world domination once whites joined in And yes Khazars mixed with Eastern Euro whites are the Ashkenazi jews of today that deserve a resounding extermination They're like niggers mixed with Arabs mixed with turks mixed with retards