#things like people not understanding that judaism is not christianity without jesus

[gorillawithautism]

i think i need to speak about my religion more

[etz-ashashiyot]

I'm sorry, but actually I'm not over that comment whining about how several of the JVP ritual, uh, practices and bastardization of Judaism are being excluded and how we can't police people's identities.

Actually yes we absolutely can.

[Rant incoming]

Listen, I hate exclusion, alright? Inclusion is always the answer when it comes to people knowing who they are. Every obnoxious identity policing thing in the queer community that has divided us and ripped apart communities has been cruel, counterproductive, given platform to bigots, a distraction from the real issues bearing down on us, and honestly just dumb as a box of rocks. Okay? Okay.

But Jewish identity works differently, because it isn't about YOU. Becoming Jewish is about taking on Jewish culture and religion, a closed ethnoreligious culture, through the narrow path consented to by the collective Jewish people. There IS a path, but it is a highly supervised one. Otherwise it's just appropriation and cultural theft; something Jews have been subjected to for millennia. And if you do legitimately convert you do so because you love the Jewish people - the whole Jewish people - and want passionately to be a Jew for its own sake. You want to join our nation-tribe. You want to join our family.

And the crazy thing to me, the thing that still blows my mind, is that this is allowed! Even after millennia of appropriation, oppression, violence, expulsions, and genocides, Am Yisrael still accepts genuine gerim. It would be so understandable if they had closed the path entirely and tried to shut out outsiders who might bring in danger on their heels even if they themselves were not dangerous.

But they didn't. We didn't. To me this is a miracle, a blessing, and sign of true faith and hope. It is a privilege to be here.

Yet in the same turn, you gotta respect the process! You can't just declare yourself a Jew simply because you feel like it — it doesn't work like that. You can't just declare yourself an Argentinian one morning either without becoming a citizen first, even if you have Argentinian ancestry. And sure, if you do have some of that ancestry, you are connected to the nation, but that's different from being given a vote y'know?

Using a totally unsupervised, totally unsanctioned, brand-new neo-pagan ritual to unilaterally declare your membership in a tribe does not make you one of us. If anything, it proves why you never will be.

Now! Let's assume for a moment that we are referring only to the provably halachic Jews whose connection and backgrounds are beyond reasonable questioning.

You can never really leave the tribe, but you absolutely can apostasize. Plenty of Jews do it. There are plenty of Jews who find that Judaism is not spiritually fulfilling for them but something else is, and they convert out. There are halachic Jews who have walked away from Judaism in order to practice any other number of religions: Christianity, Islam, Neo-paganism, Hinduism, etc.

That is their prerogative, but by doing so they turn away from their people in a serious way and cannot be said to be practicing Judaism. There is of course room for many different types of Jewish practice, but conversely, there are practices that are too far removed from Judaism to meaningfully be considered as such. Otherwise, it's no longer a coherent group identity. And because Judaism is a collective identity, that actually matters.

The Jews as a people have decided that worshipping gods that are not Hashem is not within the realm of Judaism, which is why messianic "Jews" are not practicing a valid form of Judaism even if they are halachicly Jewish and/or have Jewish ancestry. Worshipping Jesus makes you a Christian or at least adjacent. That is a hard boundary.

And yeah — if you change the basic meaning of holidays, if you bring in lots of practices that are brand new and have no halachic or even historical basis, are often highly individualistic, and would not be accepted as Judaism by the vast majority of Jews, then it absolutely falls outside it. If I started practicing a religion that made little icons of Muhammad to pray to once a day and celebrated my ingenuity with pork roast and a nice glass of wine, I don't get to say that I'm practicing Islam.

These people are doing the Jewish equivalent. It is something else entirely. Especially because so many of these practices spit in the face of major tenets of Judaism and go against Jewish values.

To treat it otherwise is to treat it as an absolutely meaningless aesthetic rather than a living breathing ethnoreligious tribe of people who get to decide our own community's boundaries and practices collectively.

And for the naysayers who still disrespect Judaism and Jewish identity and peoplehood so much that they think that they get to define Judaism more than actual rabbis? Look, we can't physically stop you from calling yourself Jewish, but by the same turn, YOU can't force US to recognize you as one of us. You can be mad, but that's the thing about group cultural identities — that cultural group gets to decide whether they claim you or not.

[To be clear: this is not about politics — there are plenty of Jewish non-Zionists and anti-Zionists who are 100% Jewish. This is about this one specific shitty organization and this particular type of behavior.]

[fdelopera]

I’m Christian but want to challenge what I’ve been taught after seeing your posts about the Old Testament having cut up the Torah to fit a different narrative. Today I was taught that the Hebrew word Elohim is the noun for God as plural and therefore evidence of the holy Trinity and Jesus & Holy Spirit been there at creation. Is that what the word Elohim actually means? Because I don’t want to be party to the Jewish faith, language and culture being butchered by blindly trusting what I was told

Hi Anon.

NOPE! The reason G-d is sometimes called Elohim in the Tanakh is because during the First Temple period (circa 1000 – 587 BCE), many of the ancestors of the Jewish people in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms practiced polytheism.

(A reminder that the Tanakh is the Hebrew bible, and is NOT the same as the “Old Testament” in Christian bibles. Tanakh is an acronym, and stands for Torah [Instruction], Nevi’im [Prophets], Ketuvim [Writings].)

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah (G-d), and these are some of the names of G-d in Judaism. Elohim literally means “Gods” (plural).

El was the head G-d of the Northern Kingdom’s pantheon, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah incorporated El into their worship as one of the many names of G-d.

The name Elohim is a vestige of that polytheistic past.

Judaism transitioned from monolatry (worshiping one G-d without denying the existence of others) to true monotheism in the years during and directly after the Babylonian exile (597 – 538 BCE). That is largely when the Torah was edited into the form that we have today. In order to fight back against assimilation into polytheistic Babylonian society, the Jews who were held captive in Babylon consolidated all gods into one G-d. Shema Yisrael Adonai eloheinu Adonai ehad. “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

So Elohim being a plural word for “Gods” has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of the Holy Trinity in Christianity.

Especially because Christians are monotheists. My understanding of the Holy Trinity (please forgive me if this is incorrect) is that Christians believe that the Holy Trinity is three persons in one Godhead. Certainly, the Holy Trinity is not “three Gods” — that would be blasphemy.

(My sincere apologies to the Catholics who just read this last sentence and involuntarily cringed about the Protestants who’ve said this. I’m so sorry! I’m just trying to show that it’s a fallacy to say that the Holy Trinity somehow comes from “Elohim.”)

But there's something else here, too. Something that as a Jew, makes me uneasy about the people who are telling you these things about Elohim and the Holy Trinity.

Suggesting that Christian beliefs like the Holy Trinity can somehow be "found" in the Tanakh is antisemitic.

This is part of “supersession theory.” This antisemitic theory suggests that Christianity is somehow the "true successor" to Second Temple Judaism, which is false.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is the true successor to Second Temple Judaism. Period.

Christianity began as an apocalyptic Jewish mystery cult in the 1st century CE, in reaction to Roman rule. One of the tactics that the Romans used to subdue the people they ruled over was a “divide and conquer” strategy, which sowed division and factionalization in the population. The Romans knew that it was easier to control a country from the outside if the people inside were at each other’s throats.

Jesus led one of many breakaway Jewish sects at the time. The Jewish people of Qumran (possibly Essenes), whose Tanakh was the “Dead Sea Scrolls,” were another sect.

Please remember that the Tanakh was compiled in the form that we have today over 500 years before Jesus lived. Some of the texts in the Tanakh were passed down orally for maybe a thousand years before that, and texts like the Song of Deborah in the Book of Judges (in the Tanakh, that’s in the Nevi’im) were first written down in Archaic Biblical Hebrew during the First Temple Period.

There is absolutely nothing of Jesus or Christianity in the Tanakh, and there is nothing in the Tanakh that in any way predicts Christianity.

Also, Christians shouldn’t use Judaism in any way to try to “legitimize” Christianity. Christianity was an offshoot of 1st century Judaism, which then incorporated a lot of Roman Pagan influence. It is its own valid religion, in all its forms and denominations.

But trying to use the Hebrew bible to give extra credence to ideas like the Holy Trinity is antisemitic.

It is a tactic used by Christian sects that want to delegitimize Judaism as a religion by claiming that Christianity was somehow “planted” in the Tanakh over 2500 years ago.

This line of thinking has led Christians to mass murder Jews in wave after wave of antisemitic violence over the last nearly 2000 years, because our continued existence as Jews challenges the notion that Christians are the “true” successors of Temple Judaism.

Again, the only successor of Temple Judaism is Rabbinic Judaism, aka Modern Judaism.

This line of thinking has also gotten Christians to force Jews to convert en masse throughout the ages. If Christians can get Jews to all convert to Christianity, then they don’t have to deal with the existential challenge to this core misapprehension about the “true” successor to Temple Judaism.

And even today, many Christians still believe that they should try to force Jews to “bend the knee” to Jesus. When I was a young teenager, a preacher who was a parent at the school I went to got me and two other Jewish students to get in his car after a field trip. After he had trapped us in his car, he spent the next two hours trying to get us to convert to Christianity. It was later explained to me that some Christians believe they get extra “points” for converting Jews. And I’m sure he viewed this act of religious and spiritual violence as something he could brag about to his congregation on Sunday.

Trying to get Jews to convert is antisemitic and misguided, and it ignores all the rich and beautiful history of Jewish practice.

We Jews in diaspora in America and Europe have a forced immersion in Christian culture. It is everywhere around us, so we learn a lot about Christianity through osmosis. Many Jews also study early Christianity because Christianity exists as a separate religion within our Jewish history.

But I don’t see a lot of Christians studying Jewish history. Even though studying Jewish history would give you a wealth of understanding and context for your own religious traditions.

So, all of this is to say, I encourage you to study Jewish history and Jewish religious practice. Without an understanding of the thousands of years of Jewish history, it is easy to completely misinterpret the Christian bible, not to mention the Hebrew bible as well.

[ethereal-multiplicity]

⟡ The Connection Between Demons and "Ghost Hunts" - A Guide to the Demonic ⟡

─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─

(Post header found on pinterest)

─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─

Who here likes watching ghost investigation videos?

I know I do, but I have a huge grudge against youtubers who think they know everything just because they are intuitive. I have repeatedly heard the term "Demon" being used when something negative comes into contact with them, or even freak out when actual demonic entities reach out to help them.... thinking that clearly a demon must want them dead.

This is the problem, they are fear mongering to new people within the spiritual community, obviously its unintentional, but it's a severe issue that no one feels like correcting for the beginner spiritualists.

So I am going to correct it, because if I hear one more thing about demons being evil come from the mouth of a "psychic" or "spiritualist" I'm going to fucking lose it. How can you claim you are spiritual when those words are on your tongue like poison.

─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─ ⟡ ─ ⊹ ⊱ ☆ ⊰ ⊹ ─

Christianity stole pagan and indigenous gods and spirits to fear monger. They used the names of the entities people held dear to force them into a cage of doubt, used the names of their mythology to make it seem more familiar when converting them, making them think their gods were evil and wrong by using their names in the holy text.

That is why the witch trials happened, that is why colonizers took land, that is why indigenous people were at war for decades, and they are still fighting for their freedom today. Because Christians used their God, used Jesus' name to back any differing beliefs into a corner.

Don't believe me? Here is some translations and historical context Look them up, these aren't fake.

Lucifer = Baldr - Norse God, Phosphorus - Roman God, Venus and Saturn - Greek and Roman Planet Personifications

Satan = "To Oppose" or "Adversary"

Hell = Hel - Norse Goddess, Hades - Greek God

Beelzebub = Baal - Canaanite God

Even their precious Jesus isn't their god, they took his name from Judaism and butchered his story.

Demons have always been known to help guide humans to the truth, to save them from the control of God.

Lucifer guided Eve to the apple from the tree of forbidden truths, trying to save her from being Adam's cattle.

That is why Lilith became a demon, she wanted to be equal with Adam, she refused to lay below him, she ran and God punished her by forcing her to give birth to thousands of demons. She became the demonic liberator, all because she wanted to be properly loved and cared for as a human being, instead of being treated like she was a dog Adam could tame.

⊱ ☆ ⊰

If you research the demons of the Goetia, such as the 7 Lords, Buer, King Paimon, Barbatos, etc. They are all known as the keeper of truths, the teacher of knowledge.

Buer is the teacher of Moral Philosophy, Keeper of Hidden Knowledge, Teacher of Herbal Remedies, he could cure any illness, and he gifted witches with their familiars and protectors.

King Paimon is the Keeper of Hidden Knowledge and Truth, Keeper of Treasure, and Teacher of Academics/Science, Guider to life forces (Such as water)

Barbatos Guides people to Hidden Treasure, He helps heal any kind of relationship, He can understand the language of all animals, and He can see into the past and future.

All 7 Lords of Hell, Lucifer, Satan, Asmodeus, etc. all rule over one key thing. Freedom.

Lucifer and Satan liberate people from horrible and traumatic situations.

Asmodeus and Mammon allow people the freedom for earthly pleasures.

Beelzebub allows people the freedom to eat whatever they want without judgement. Such as pork and shellfish.

Belphegor allows people to rest and sleep as much as they need, not to force themselves or overwork their power.

Leviathan allows people to feel jealous, to feel angry, to make themselves so worked up that they change their life and get rid of what isn't serving them. He is the ruler of manifestation itself.

Do any of these entities sound evil? No! Of course not!

There is no actual historical context of any demon harming humans, in fact the only harm the bible says they do is teach them the forbidden truths.

Demons are liberators! They are saviors! They are the healer of religious trauma! There is a reason people with religious trauma tend to gravitate towards Satanism or Paganism. Demons are healers! Just look at Buer and Barbatos, they heal and protect humans and animals and expect nothing in return.

⊱ ☆ ⊰

But you may be asking, where does this all tie into the ghost hunters on youtube?

Well, the reason I have written this is to point out that demons aren't harmful, to provide proof to the beginner spiritualists that their is no reason to be afraid.

When the hunters say they've came into contact with a violent demon, its called a poltergeist!

Poltergeists are born of human negativity, they are entities born to cause harm and havoc. They are born from all the sadness, anger, trauma, and grief of this world. That is why when you go to these haunted locations with a fucked up history, there is going to be violent entities.

These spirits are hurting, hauntings happen for a reason. Spirits who are actually happy and content don't get stuck in our world. Their collective emotions and thoughts birth Poltergeists, and Poltergeists are made to act upon the violence that they were created with. They are made to seek vengeance on those who they view as a threat.

Has your mood ever got ruined, and then everything else that day went to absolute shit? That is kinda how poltergeists work, they are born from the pain of both the dead and the living, and when there is enough trauma, they come to "life". Poltergeists and the emotions that caused them, deserve to heal, not to be demonized.

I don't give a rats ass if that entity hurt you, trying to hurt it back or expelling it from your home/space is going to anger it, because you are oppressing an already traumatized being. But thats for another post.

My last point of proof is my lived experience, I was raised Christian, but every time I stepped foot in a church I had violent intrusive thoughts and feelings, to the point I constantly felt nauseous in church due to the overstimulating energy.

Once I found Paganism and Witchcraft, all of that went away. Around my gods, I am free, I feel loved, I feel their healing.

When I am sick? I feel their guidance and support allowing me to properly rest. When I am depressed? I feel their nurturing energy. When I am crying? I feel hands gently on the side of my face, my head, or my shoulders.

When I communicate with them? They tell me its time to heal from my trauma. When I ask them about the christian god? They tell me Christians have got it wrong, and God/Jesus is actually so kind and does not support anything Christianity has done in his name.

My point is, STOP TELLING THOUSANDS OF VIEWERS ONLINE THAT DEMONS WANT TO HURT YOU AND SPREAD ILLNESS THAT IS FEAR MONGERING

You cannot under any circumstances say your intuitive, psychic, or spiritual, and then refuse to understand the history of intuition, divination, and religion. You are not a healer, you are not a communicator, you are an oppressor.

This post isn't made to convince people demons are harmless.... but it is made to convince people to stop spreading their hate everywhere just because they don't understand something.

[baroque-hashem]

Not sure how you can say there's anything Jewish about Jesus when almost all of his teachings are vehemently opposed to traditional Judaism. Like, that was kind of his shtick. He wanted to tear down the old order and make a new one with himself on top.

The Torah tells us to respect our parents. He said to hate your parents.

He defiled Shabbat, which is one of the key things an observant Jew is NOT supposed to do.

He said he was G-d; I don't think I need to explain how fucked up that one sounds to a 1st century CE Jew lmao.

He did so many things that completely spat in the face of the customs Jews had held sacred for hundreds of years.

If a random guy today were to come forward and say he was G-d, and then a small but devout group of people flocked to him, we would call that a cult. Why do you think people 2,000 years ago would've behaved any differently?

I just need y'all to understand why Jews at the time would've thought Jesus was full of shit. But tbh there's scant evidence he ever even existed.

But if he did exist, he was just some knacker with a god complex.

I am so sick of people saying "Jesus was a Jew! Xtianity is Jewish at its core!" Like no. No. Without question, no. There is no "Judeo-Christian". There are Jews and Christians. We are not the same. And a religion that was founded with Jews as its villains and then spent hundreds of years persecuting Jews as "g-d killers" is inherently antisemitic.

[daughter-of-sapph0]

I went to a catholic school for three years during middle school, and as bad as people say public education is, private education (at least my tiny souther catholic school) is even worse.

my music class claimed that music literally did not exist at all until gregorian chants. not religious music, but like all music in general. when I pointed out that certain cultures like native americans had their own music long before european colonizers arrived and before encountering any form of christianity, my teacher said and I quote "that isn't real music"

my entire religion class which claimed to go over all major religions without any bias only focused on christianity, it's fifty billions different branches (and of course tried to shove into your brain that catholicism was the only correct one), and a very heavily biased and distorted view of Judaism that quickly skimmed over and misinterpreted the Torah and tried to paint god as horrible and angry and rude until jesus came and saved humanity forever. all other religions like Islam and Hindu where completely ignored, apart from a short "some people believe different things. even if they're wrong, we should still be nice to them... by proselytizing and teaching them how awesome jesus is no matter what."

history for all three years was exclusively greek, roman, and american history up to wwii all with a focus on "both sides" of any war. spanish class was just sitting a bunch of dumb middle schoolers in front of the computer with rosetta stone and expecting them to understand how to use it without any help. science books were all 20 years out of date. english teacher wanted her class to go on a field trip to DC for a pro life protest, completely unrelated to anything we were doing in class. math was the only decent class, probably because it's impossible to make math political or have a hidden agenda.

[jessicalprice]

not every story is a fable

(reposted from Twitter)

So in reading Christian commentary on NT parables, and its wild and ugly claims about first-century Jews and Judaism, I often find myself wondering how they got there. And I think I've discerned the process. 

It goes a little something like this: 

Christians receive traditional interpretations of what the parables “mean." E.g. the prodigal son means you should forgive people, the good Samaritan means you should help people in need. These meanings are, generally, banal.

Rather than reading the parables as stories, Christians read them as fables with a moral. They read them through the lens of that moral instead of approaching them without a predetermined interpretation.

Christians also believe that the parables must contain revolutionary, radical truths.

So now, they somehow have to resolve the idea that the stories are radical with the fact that their received interpretations are obvious/banal/the same thing plenty of other people have said.

And that goes a little something like this: 

Since (what they believe are) the morals of these stories don't sound radical to contemporary Westerners, they project that radicalness backward onto the parable's original context and audience. That is, it must have been radical/shocking at the time, to the people who first heard it.

Now they have to resolve the dilemma of how something that sounds so banal and obvious to us could have been radical and shocking and scandalous(!) to the original listeners.

Most of them aren't going to say "Jesus's Jewish listeners were incredibly malicious and/or incredibly stupid," at least out loud. So they move to: Projecting that onto Jewish culture, Jewish law, "religious law," etc. 

So then they need to make up norms/customs/attitudes that would make the parable "shocking." If they can find a source that maybe seems to say something that hints in that direction, they'll claim it says a lot more than it does and that it was normative. (E.g. Ben Sira saying you can tell things about a man from how he walks ends up meaning "the villagers would have stoned the father for running to greet his long-lost son" and of course that running to greet your long-lost son would be S H O C K I N G to the listeners.)

It's why they love throwing "ritual purity" in there so much. 

The father in the Prodigal Son story wouldn't embrace his son because he was ritually impure! (If the father was out doing farm stuff and wasn't going to the Temple any time soon, most likely, so was he.)

The kohen and the Levite in the Good Samaritan story passed by the dying man on the side of the road because they were afraid he would make them ritually impure! (The story is very clear they were headed AWAY from Jerusalem, and thus the Temple, so no.)

The Pharisee in the Temple has contempt for the tax collector and doesn't want to stand next to him because he's ritually impure! (No, if the tax collector is in the Temple, he is in a state of ritual purity.)

An anthropologist friend of mine told me that when anthropologists/archaeologists are confronted with an object from an ancient culture and they don't know what it's for, the default category is "ritual object."

Did you dig up a weird-shaped ax that doesn't seem well-designed for either being a weapon OR chopping things? Ritual object. 

Find a statue with some odd characteristics? Ritual object.

"Ritual purity" appears to be to Christian understanding of Jewish customs what "ritual object" is to anthropologists. Anything that doesn't make sense to you, put down to "ritual purity."

So, anyway, the process goes like this: 

parables must be shocking > 

they're not shocking to me > 

they must have been shocking to Jews > 

make up supposed Jewish customs/laws/attitudes that would have made normal behavior "shocking"

It’s exhausting. 

(Photo credit: Andrea Piacquadio)

[thejewitches]

So I kinda grew up in an evangelical environment, and I'm just now able to expose myself to and learn about other religions. The only things I learned about Judaism growing up were likely very twisted to suit the teachings of the pastors. I heard a lot about "messianic Jews" (which I now know is very much not a thing) and how "a lot" of Jewish people converted because they began to believe that Jesus was the messiah (yeah it was bad, really bad)

Anyways since I'm trying to educate myself, I'm trying to not just read about other religions, but if possible, I'm trying to read the holy books of the religions as well. I talked to a Muslim friend I had at work and he told me I could read the Quran (I guess I felt weird about reading it because I wasn't looking to convert to Islam). In the same vein, could I read the Talmud to learn more? I was told that the Bible and the Talmud were the same growing up (so there was no point in reading it, according to my elders, also incorrect information). Is there a particular translation that would be better to read?

Very sorry for all the parenthetical statements I was trying to keep it brief but I have severe adhd so thoughts just come at they please. Love your blog, and I'm very happy to be learning a lot from you already, and unlearning a lot in the process, so thank you for posting resources and the like. Very appreciated.

Could I read the Talmud to learn more?

The short answer is: Reading the Talmud without knowing how or what you are reading will not give you the information you are looking for. The sentiment of reading to learn more is wonderful, but on your own without any prior learning, it is tantamount to reading a book in a language you don't speak to understand the poetry of the language better. You can do it, but you won't have the tools to decipher it in any meaningful way. If you want to learn more about Judaism, studying Talmud is definitely not the place to start.

There is something called Daf Yomi where Jews study one single page of Talmud every single day. With 2,711 pages in the Talmud, one Daf Yomi cycle takes about 7 years, 5 months--and it takes this long because studying the Talmud to understand the Talmud is not just reading a book. There are ways you can just read it, sure, but that doesn't mean you will be learning or understanding what you are reading in the way that Jews do (just as you can read a series of random words without actually comprehending what is in front of you).

If you're looking to study Talmud, have you studied Torah with Jews? Begun to understand the Jewish perspective on the Torah? How we approach our texts with a completely different eye than Christians? How the Old Testament you grew up with may look nothing like what we know and love?

If you're certain that the answer to those questions is yes, and you feel ready to start learning Talmud, see if there is a local rabbi in your area who offers a class or a seminar. Many are free. It is meant to be a community activity. But chances are, that isn't the case.

But frankly: you don't need to study Talmud to learn about Jews and Judaism. There is no need for that. The best way to learn about Judaism is always going to be listening to Jews. Listen to our conversations, hear us, and read the resources we create to share about Judaism. One of the greatest barriers that people often face is shedding the unrealized paradigm and perspective that is left from an evangelical upbringing. Challenging those perspectives is paramount.

If you feel more than a small draw to know, you can go ahead and study Torah, and maybe eventually study Talmud, but if all you want is to know more about Judaism, studying Talmud is not step one.

This is the layout of a Talmud page in Hebrew--it is much more than just a straightforward reading, especially if you want to genuinely engage with the text.

This is, of course, but the opinion of one. The Jewish community is made up of more opinions than individuals and all deserve to be heard.

[beardedmrbean]

“You'd think the black community would understand how variations in skin tone happen in every ethnic group, all the screaming about colourism I see, but I suppose that may be reserved for people they don't see as white.”

My dear friend they can’t comprehend that Egypt was a huge trade hub so a lot of ethnics intermingle there much kind how people who have ancestry around Baghdad are mixed.

Also about the Jewish thing…I’m sorry for you guys think ancient people were always inbreed af?

I think a lot of black Americans in general are mixed, I mean I get red as fuck when I’m in the sun for an awhile or mad as hell. I’m pretty sure a like a Central Africans (where most black with slave ancestry are from) can easily spot us it been 400-150 years since we spent foot on Africa

I mean we can easily tell the difference between a white American who have mayflower ancestry to their British and other European counterparts

Also about Jewish skintones….

People know

The Jewish tribes

Intermingle

With the local groups

They settled down with

Well until they were kicked out, again and again

Also it why Jewish people can get TANS I think Jeff Goldblum is an obvious example because I could sworn he pale in some movies while tanner in others.

Not to mention we can tell like the whole Jew Afro thing I think….fuck I forgot his name, the chubby guy from the 21 jump street movies..like he look like a normal white guy but you see pics with him with his hair grown out you see his Jewish roots

Also yeah that thing about Prince of Egypt, oh you mean Jewish Americans eagerly joined an animated project about their people struggle which they can show to their kids and future generations for centuries to come? Vs the clusterfuck that it usually to get Israeli actors around that time?

Also since Rameses II is usually the presumed pharaoh that Moses called brother. And Ramses and along with his relatives mummies shows he ginger

It not rocket science to presumed that Moses and the other Jews were dark af because there had to be a reason why Moses was able to be raised as a Prince without suspicion

Sorry for the rant

My dear friend they can’t comprehend that Egypt was a huge trade hub so a lot of ethnics intermingle there much kind how people who have ancestry around Baghdad are mixed.

Interbreeding is such a bad sounding word for it, but it's totally accurate so ya, that's how ethnicities happen, Coptics in Egypt are a Christian ethnoreligous group. St Mark did his mission after the Resurrection in Egypt this is going to be one of the oldest Christian communities in the world and as far as I know the only one that's also a ethnicity too, Amish too maybe, since they pretty much keep everything in the group.

With the Jewish thing you'll hit similar as you will with the Copts, except Judaism is much older so you can't really pin any single skin tone to Jewish people.

The monarchy was abolished but this is Hali Salisi, last Emperor of Ethiopia and according to the Rastafarian movement the 2nd coming of Jesus. I have questions for Bob Marley.

Family claims lineage back to King Solmon through the Queen of Sheba, not sure how much I buy that but there are/were a lot of Jewish people in Ethiopia, bulk of them are in Israel making Judaism even more white than it was,,,,,,,,,

Pasty mayo munching crackers the lot of them, they need to activate their white privilege I guess.

The Jewish tribes Intermingle With the local groups They settled down with

To a point ya, in some cases it was unavoidable, still when you genetically test the two main European groups they come up closer to the MENA Jewish communities than the locations they settled in,

Not to mention we can tell like the whole Jew Afro thing I think….fuck I forgot his name, the chubby guy from the 21 jump street movies..like he look like a normal white guy but you see pics with him with his hair grown out you see his Jewish roots

It's called a "JewFro" not even a joke btw, you're thinking of Jonah Hill taller one here is Seth Rogan another of the hollywood types with the chosen hairstyle of the chosen people.

Whole VA thing for the most part people weren't paying attention to ethnicity till recently for the most part, Prince of Egypt is actually one that looks like a exception to that from everything I've seen.

also wat

Also since Rameses II is usually the presumed pharaoh that Moses called brother. And Ramses and along with his relatives mummies shows he ginger

Today I learned, granted the next paragraph is dissent to this one and we're not likely to ever actually know.

But maybe we can get some Scotts and Irish to adopt their own version of the hotep life, lmao.

It not rocket science to presumed that Moses and the other Jews were dark af because there had to be a reason why Moses was able to be raised as a Prince without suspicion

Probably not so dark, not in his youth at least. Up till very recently a tan put you in the lower classes because the wealthy didn't need to go out into the sun to labor so the aristocracy would have likely been lighter than the average man.

Now a tan means you have the time to waste laying out in the sun, or you like to hit the tanning booths or spray on places, whole other thing with all of that.

But I digress, he probably did look close enough that it wasn't anything anyone noticed.

__________________________

Something off the current subject for you under the readmore I think you'll like.

Keep forgetting to tack this one, mostly different subject matter, but if you do TikTok you in particular may get a big kick out of this account.

Not African Hippie Kenyan woman who came to the US, fell in love with a white dude, took him back home to meet the family and get married, in Kenya, traditional tribal ceremony and everything, and she has a lot to say

Easy on the eyes too.

I think this is called winning at life. Even with the 'Sears photo center' family pictures.

[avelera]

Looking at your rant on the Crowley-Lucifer theory as a Jewish person myself who actually majored in World Religions- I one hundred percent agree with everything you said. It was nonsensical from the start and I'm glad Neil ran it into the ground. Even without the S1 line stating that Lucifer was not Crowley, Gaiman knows his religion and mythology. Definitely knows it better than the majority of GO fans do. And you didn't come across as antisemitic or ignorant to me at all, idk what that other person was on about.

Thank you! Seriously, this is a huge relief. I know I shouldn’t get this angry about it but I have vast respect for Jewish people and the Jewish tradition and so being accused out of the blue of ignoring or diminishing Jewish people or Jewish thought is incredibly upsetting to me.

I personally am not a Christian (if anything, I’d consider myself a Hellenistic pagan, or an atheist if called upon by those I didn’t want to talk about that faith with) however I was raised in the Catholic tradition albeit unwillingly pretty much from the start. I’m informed on Catholic Christianity from that context, but I feel no connection to it or protectiveness of it (indeed, I welcome future iterations of GO absolutely tearing into Christian dogma, I think it’s hilarious and fertile ground for satire). I also took several courses on religion in college, both on the Christian and Jewish tradition. I don’t claim this makes me an expert by any standard but I am at least educated beyond a casual understanding of these faiths, I would like to think.

Anyway, it’s actually my gut feeling that a pivot from a context where Christ is the explicit son of god in GO to one where the Jewish tradition was actively called upon and needed to understand the text would be absolutely fraught with potential to give offense to the Jewish faith. It’s one reason I think GO stays far away from invoking the Jewish tradition, specifically out of respect.

GO takes place in a fantasy world where the Antichrist is real. To say the Jewish tradition is active would imply it’s only accurate to a point and then it becomes inaccurate because it would mean that Jewish people were wrong about Jesus being the Messiah, ie it means that in that universe Jewish beliefs are wrong and then superseded by the objective existence of Christ as the son of god and the events of the Second Coming, which is an incredibly offensive thing to say and ground that is incredibly fraught with echoes of arguments from the history (and present!) of Christian bigotry towards Judaism. It’s not disrespectful, in my opinion, to separate out the Jewish tradition from the discussions of GO lore, quite the contrary, to borrow from Jewish and Christian tradition while giving Christian dogma and its Messiah preeminence within the story as objective fact would be far far more offensive, and I personally think Neil understands that.

[nothorses]

I think what's especially annoying to me about the "culturally Christian" argument is that people pushing the phrase (as a way of referring to individuals) tend to argue that it's describing a difference in what you know about cultures and religions outside of Christianity.

That's how they justify applying it to atheists and agnostics who don't come from a minority religion background, right? You don't know about any other religion, you must know about Christianity no matter what because that's the dominant religion here, which means you're closer to Christianity than anything else.

But like.

I was raised atheist by people who were raised atheist. Adults around me knew about Christianity, but because we never talked about it, I didn't know anything about any religion for a good chunk of my childhood.

I found out Christmas was a religious holiday when I was like 9; I thought it was about Santa before that, and I literally did not know what the nativity scene was.

I thought Easter was about eggs and bunnies until I was about the same age. I did not understand who Jesus was when it was finally explained to me; I received that information in 7th grade social studies class, when my teacher was explaining the divergence of the three Abrahamic religions.

I learned the vast majority of what I know about Christianity in art history classes I took for my degree, and I was, at the same time, working at a Jewish afterschool program; a not-insignificant part of my job was helping to lead Shabbat prayers and teaching kids about upcoming Jewish holidays. We discussed Jewish values and how they related to the structure of the program very regularly. I cannot stress enough that this was part of a Jewish community center in which a Rabbi worked and relevant gatherings and celebrations happened.

I would say I know more about Christianity, but it's not a huge margin, and a lot of that is repetition; things I've learned about Christianity have been reinforced and repeated over time, and that's not really true of Judaism for me. Had I worked at the JCC for more than two years, my answer might be different.

I would say that I received a lot of Christian messaging growing up, because our broader cultural values are heavily rooted in those ideas. Everyone gets that messaging. What they do with it might depend on their family's culture and religion, and it might depend on their own internal processing. I can say, personally, that much of that messaging didn't stick for me; I realized there was no "real" reason for those beliefs at a pretty young age, and spent a lot of time obsessing over the internal consistency of my own value system. I rejected a lot of them, often without even knowing where they were coming from.

So yeah, you could absolutely say I know more about Christianity, I've been exposed to more of it, and that I've been surrounded by more of it. But everyone in this country experiences this too some degree; to draw highly individualized conclusions about that based on the fact that I'm an atheist alone feels disingenuous, to say the least. Atheism is why I was questioning those things, and rejecting many of them; how is that different from other beliefs? Why does the fact that there is no higher power involved make that less significant than for those who do believe in one?

Don't get me wrong, our culture is Christian. This has an impact on individuals, and I think it's fair to say that some people are more driven to challenge those ideas than others. I'd argue that atheism does require challenging Christian ideas on its own, but I can concede that as a generally self-directed thing, it's easier for folks to just not self-reflect in that way than it might be when going through a guided conversion process.

But.

That line isn't hard and fast, and it's unfair to insist that it is just for the sake of convenience. Particularly when Christians themselves are unwilling to include anyone different from them, especially for the sake of sharing their power.

[pathwinding]

Jewitch Self-Analysis: Theism & Personal Conceptualization

I've already monologued about my relationship with belief. I'm going to try to set it aside in order to focus on my current perspective on HaShem. I see this as perhaps one of the most--if not the most--critical sticking points about the awkwardness of combining Judaism and witchcraft. "Aren't you using non-Jewish spiritual practices that HaShem forbids? Do you think you can control HaShem with magic? Do you not trust HaShem to let things happen as they are supposed to?"

I'm... ready to wade into the controversial pool here. I feel like people can get HaShem wrong. And in an way that could be argued to be idolatrous. I'm not going to say that with absolute certainty nor authority-- I'm just one drop of opinion in an ocean of people with actual acclaim after all--but I'm still going to talk about it.

Jews generally recognize that references in the Torah to HaShem's arm or face or whatnot are intended to be metaphorical. We humans anthropomorphize things in order to better understand them. If people try to apply physical form to HaShem or act as if a physical thing is divine in a serious way, however, this is a form of idolatry. And so I argue that anthropomorphizing, trying to fit HaShem into a human box in any kind of serious way, is a form of idolatry (albeit perhaps a far less severe form). It comes easy to people, both because of the psychological phenomenon I mentioned (of making HaShem easier to understand) but also because it's an effect of living in a very Christian-dominated society which frequently depicts images of Gd in a human-adjacent form or mortal Jesus as Gd.

But HaShem is Ein Sof, Without End. HaShem is not human. For as easy as it is for me to apply human traits, it's equally difficult for me to not feel as though this application is disrespectful or inappropriate. It even feels wrong to say "melech" during brachot, and I have a little mental asterisk in my head that says "but not in a human way though."

It would be easy for me to say that HaShem would forgive us for this act of idolatrous anthropomorphizing because it is not intentional idoltary. And then that right there would be an example of the anthropomorphizing I'm talking about. Saying that "HaShem would forgive" implies HaShem has emotions the way humans do, makes choices the way humans do, interacts with the linear progression of cause and effect the way humans do. It's a set of assumptions we make because we are human and only truly understand how humans act. On an intuitive level, we have the barest understanding of how other animals act, try very hard to understand plants and fungi, and don't even see anything else as having a deeper understanding to it at all. And yet, we think we have a decent understanding of HaShem?

I feel like I'm just reiterating Maimonides' theistic conceptualization, in a way. I'm almost not even sure why I'm bothering to write this post, now that I'm re-reading the article I just linked and finding it a lot better worded without throwing around accusations of soft idolatry.

I think the place I diverge is when I start stepping away from Maimonides' very rational "negative theology" the article describes, and start adding something in again. (With the asterisk of "I don't fully believe this nor disbelieve this, please refer to the 'secret third thing' in my previous post on belief," of course.)

I agree with Maimonides that, logically, something came before the universe. I can't be satisfied with the Big Bang Theory alone, because something must have surrounded it, initiated it. Our world has a logical progression to it, and the only thing that could have predated it is something that is incomprehensible, something to be forever grateful to for helping/allowing/initiating the universe. And it seems to me that there is no reason to think that this Supreme Being vanished, or was eliminated by the universe coming into play. In fact, it seems very reasonable to think that this Supreme Being used Its own self (inasmuch as It has one) to create the universe, and as such is part of every little thing that lies within. We are still surrounded by Oneness.

So. I guess I currently conceptualize HaShem as the neural network of the universe. Not material, but the thing inhabiting and driving the material. Not thinking, but nevertheless acting. Everything connected on an immaterial level, and affecting one another like dominoes. Perhaps if we were able to somehow rip ourselves from our material forms we may perceive a pattern suggesting human-like intent or at the very least perceive the general direction of the universe, but that's not possible. At best, we have the chance at finding this understanding if/when we are reintegrated with HaShem at the end of the universe.

As a visualization, I see HaShem as the light behind the starfield of the universe. The waves of energy that seep from the stars emanating in all directions, and clinging to/supporting everything perceivable. Creeping tendrils of that energy reaching into the material, including my body and the chair and the air, with branches that are more numerous for more complex material things like life. All tendrils connecting to one another in a complex network, pulsing between each other. While my mind is limited to my branching tendrils, I am nevertheless part of this neural network and affect/am affected by each nearby component. I glow with the light. HaShem is Everything and I am part of Everything.

And here's the witchery part of this: If we are part of an immaterial neural network, we should be able to trigger effects in this neural network. Certainly I can cause the most perceivable effects with my material self (directly talk to someone to get their help), but I should also be able to cause effects if I can invoke those immaterial connections (invoking our connection so that a person feels suddenly inclined to ask me if I need help).

The closest I can perceive of immateriality, as a human, include my emotions and belief and intent and overall abstract thought. Perhaps I can better control my surroundings by engaging these most immaterial aspects of my self. Stronger connections can help me with that, and repetition (habits but also utilizing aspects of shared languages & culture) strengthens those connections. Following things that I associate with the immaterial because other people also do, the witchy-like things, may give me a better chance at successful invocation.

There's part of me that feels the universe is inevitable. The very concept of gravity dragging things in a specific direction suggests that all actions will happen along a predetermined linear path. Even if invoking the immaterial is possible and works, there remains a possibility it was also inevitable that things would happen upon my invocation. But this doesn't nudge me to quit. Because no matter the truth of the nature of the universe, I am tapping into something sacred and mysterious and worth acknowledging. I am reaching within and finding HaShem's light.

Say I do believe in this wholeheartedly, and wasn't stuck on my "secret third thing" belief. This is not at all traditional Judaism. And it may even seem an arbitrary thing for me to assign Jewish interpretation as the "correct" interpretation of That Which Existed Before The Universe As We Know It. I don't know if it's "correct." Everything is passed through humans in order to communicate such abstract concepts like this Ultimate Abstract Concept, and there are most certainly errors as we attempt to comprehend the Incomprehensible. I can't even bring myself to truly see the Torah, our most sacred document, as directly from HaShem because of all the humanness involved that is necessary for it to exist. So why continue with Judaism? Why not just start anew with these fringe thoughts?

I think it's because, at the end of the day, I'm still a human who needs home and community. And Judaism is this for me, more than fringe witchcraft alone could ever be. It is the truest monotheistic religion, it is the religion that I grew up with, and it is a set of beliefs that I can adhere to in such a way that makes me feel as though I still am doing something good and true. It feels right. I am ever-grateful to HaShem for my life, and perhaps by performing halachot, my sacred obligations, I can effectively express that feeling.

The short of it is this: Judaism gives me the strongest spiritual connection to the immaterial neural network of the universe, and invoking this immaterial through witchcraft makes me feel closest to HaShem. It gives me balance, and meaning. And through this I am fulfilled.

[gayleviticus]

I think the Gospel of John is the book of the bible which has changed most to me over the years without my objective understanding of it having changed. like, I read the pastoral differently knowing they probably weren't written by Paul, I read Revelation differently knowing its probably a coded drama about Rome and persecution (but that nonetheless has timeless things to say about God's justice and human empire and martyrdom and the eventual coming of Christ and new creation), I read the Pentateuch differently knowing all about Jahwist and Priestly source and blah blah blah.

And there's a little bit of that w John - mainly, the fact it seems to be one of the more recent gospels that reinterprets the life of Jesus thru the lens of the Christian community at the time and its painful divorce from Judaism (like John has people being exiled from the synagogue for believing in Jesus as the Messiah, which historically speaking seems a bit premature).

But I think mainly just the vibes feel different to me now than they used to. I haven't unlocked a secret historical understanding of John; it just has this almost melancholy, spiritual loneliness to it at times to me.

Instead of the monster of the week episodic exorcisms and healings of the synoptics we get a carefully chosen sequence of miracle stories that escalate quite dramatically into the plot to kill Jesus; his relationship to the Pharisees is quite consistently one of being persecuted and threatened w violence rather than them being more equal rivals throughout the synoptics; instead of parables and moral teachings he goes on long and honestly confusing speeches that make him out to be someone truly mysterious and otherworldly.

He speaks at length of returning to the Father and his kingdom not being of this world, and yet there are also very tender moments of love and human connection - the frivolous joy of turning water to wine at Cana, weeping at Lazarus' grave, Mary and Martha's honest accusation that 'if you had been here Lord, he would not have died', washing the disciples feet, 'I have not lost any of those you have given me', 'having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end' 'greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends', 'I no longer call you servants, but friends'.

there's an interesting depth and ambiguity to John I find, almost. The synoptics are a bit like the weekly episodic adventures of Jesus - the happy, golden years of Jesus' ministry marred by a horrific tragedy that breaks out into resurrection. There's room for countless more stories on the road to Jerusalem of bringing good news to the poor, proclaiming release to the captives and sight to the blind.

Whereas John feels a bit more like the miniseries, or even movie version- denser, tighter.

[jewishbarbies]

hi! no pressure to answer this - one of my Jewish friends said they don't like to group Judaism alongside religions like Christianity and Islam, as this implies that Judaism and the Jewish people were imperialistic when historically, the Jewish community has survived thousands of years of persecution. my friend said that in Judaism, there is no proselytizing, which explains why you don't see synagogues built over indigenous places of worship unlike churches and mosques and mass conversions are not done in the name of G-d. i would like to ask, if this is a general consensus of not grouping Judaism as "Abrahamic" simply due to the historical context and connotations present now?

yes and no, imo. it’s not Abrahamic because that’s just not a thing. christianity exists because of colonialism. early rome said we couldn’t practice judaism and then turned around and bastardized torah in order to make a new religion based on someone a lot of modern jews don’t believe even existed, and went on to purge the world of jews in favor of that new religion. islam is the only one relatively close to judaism. it’s a good analogy to say us not proselytizing explains no synagogues on indigenous worship places, but it’s also not, because our beliefs are wholly against that in a way that’s beyond not proselytizing. it’s definitely simpler and easier for non jews to understand what we mean if we say it that way though.

not lumping christianity and judaism goes a lot deeper than being linked to imperialism, because there’s a lot of history involved in christian colonialism and supremacy when it comes to jews. they believe that they’re the “true chosen people” and will eventually replace us when jesus wipes us out of the holy land. at the same time, they almost fetishize us because of their misunderstanding of “chosen people”. they teach that christianity evolved from judaism and that it’s a natural progression, but that’s just not true at all, because it wouldn’t exist without colonialism and mass murder. basically however you cut it, they want to replace us, which is what they’ve been trying to do for centuries. it’s very very complex so this is the gist.

I hope this at all answered your question!

[seewetter]

"Why is divorce a sin in christianity when judaism has recognized the right to divorce for nearly a millennia and has codified religious laws for it."

This comes from Jesus using "divorce" as a metaphor for a believer who divorces themselves from God (who after all is conceived of as the source of justice, good and the embodiment of perfection).

The early church was heavily influenced by a sect known as the Pharisees, who were opponents of Jesus but also many of the first converts. So while Jesus preached that all scripture available in his time was made by humans and only reflected human understandings and desires and did not reflect God's will, the Pharisees were very attached to existing scripture. The idea of following instructions from religious writings is more comforting to many people than Jesus' idea that God only knows one commandment (that of Love) and so early Christians already disregarded that moment in the gospels were Jesus defines what it means (to him) for people to be following the New Testament. Thus they just added "divorce" to the list of commandments of things not to do. Anyone who reads the gospel of Mark even without looking into it too deeply might be confused how anyone can overlook the obvious metaphorical language, but the truth is the Pharisees were just not able to understand the amount of overhaul suggested by Jesus. Just to make this clear: Jesus condemned the Ten Commandments explicitly! And his disciples kept violating religious laws...but obviously the gospels don't mention Jesus violating all religious laws, so the Pharisees and other conservative converts assumed that laws Jesus hadn't broken were still good to go.

"Why does christianity consider sex to be dirty (to the point where puritans considered it a sin to enjoy having sex with your own spouse)"

A lot of religions consider lust to be sinful and a lot of scripture that is thousands of years old reinforces this thinking. You will find Jewish sources condemning lust, but also Hindu sources, Buddhist sources, Jain sources, Zoroastrian sources, etc. (I want to be clear that these traditions are often quite diverse in their opinions on the topic)

It's hard to really know how this developed, because many of these religions originate in prehistory, before written texts exist. Zoroastrianism for example is at least 3,000 years old, but it's unclear just how old...and the Zoroastrians have scripture that (verbatim!) reads "A man shall not lay with another man as he does with a woman" which is basically what we find in Leviticus as well.

One answer as to why so many religions end up building a moral system where sex is dirty and morally wrong is that many religions try to encourage asceticism: to refrain from food, drink, human company, hygiene or sexual practices is often seen as a sign of devotion. This is common both in religions that simply value devoted religious specialists and in religions who view their own values as a path towards the salvation of every person or even as the salvation of society and the world. Early Christian theologians like Tertullian viewed sexuality as a distraction from their meditations and religious duties and thus as something that must somehow be evil.

Puritans took this idea to a whole new level because Puritans were a group of people frustrated with the corrupt church establishment who needed to prove they were actually Christians and so tried to brand themselves as Christian as possible. Hence why Protestant groups have small churches (seems more humble) and why they fixate on the Bible (because if you want to rhetorically defeat the pope and say you stand with God more than the pope, the Bible is probably one of the few tools available to you).

"Why does christianity consider it a sign that you're faithless if you question your religion when in judaism that's considered an essential part to developing your faith."

The Book of Ruth tells the story of Noomi, a woman who doubts her religion and becomes a pagan and thus befriends Ruth. Both later rejoin the faith and if Noomi hadn't become pagan, Ruth would not have stopped being a pagan. Ruth's conversion into the faith is essential since (according to the gospel of Matthew) she is an ancestor of Jesus.

More to the point, Christianity's early converts were often Pharisees (St. Paul for example, the first popularizer of the life of Jesus, mentions that he still considers himself a Pharisee), a sect somewhat similar to modern Orthodox Judaism. And if you look up heresy online, you'll find that Orthodox Jews are familiar with the concept and love to employ it.

Why?

Well, some religions are trying to save the world. The Ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Romans did not think that their religion would save the world and as a result were pretty chill about the beliefs of other people (except when people didn't pay tribute to the Roman emperor, for example, then they got persecuted). Even in Judaism, people imagine that the Jewish people are chosen to bring forth the messiah who will save the world. This is were Orthodox Jewish groups become afraid that they, as the chosen people, will lose their way and betray the source of goodness (and saving, since they believe they are the chosen people due to a Pact with God and that Pact can be betrayed and cancelled)...and thus become afraid of people who break with tradition. Obviously if your beliefs involve believing that your beliefs are needed to save the world, then what your community believes becomes something you attempt to make rules about. While Ancient Greeks didn't mind importing new gods from the Middle-East or worshipping entirely different gods than the mainstream*, religions who want to save the world are far more likely to care about what people around them believe.

"Not every religion is Christianity where you're given orders that you have to follow blindly or be punished."

This by the way is historically a very recent phenomenon. It's not until the 1700s that the church started to (A) lose rhetorical ground to well-crafted philosophical and scientific arguments and (B) started to buy into the idea that its own ideas would be confirmed by science.

In medieval times the church was the institution in Europe that funded all the universities and the things the church said about the world were the full extent of what most Europeans knew about the universe. They were at the cutting edge of science. Occam's Razor is named after a medieval monk named Occam.

But this had negative consequences: the church an institution built around trying to save the world by enforcing goodness. The universities it funded and ran were meant to study God's creation. This meant that in the 1200s for example, speculation about alternate universes was invented just to not step on any religious authority's toes when trying to think carefully about existence. If you wanted to brainstorm ideas, you had to be careful, because even though as far as you (a medieval scholar) knew everything the church said was 100% true, there was a good chance even saying a "bad idea" could cause people to attack or censor you. The church felt about such "bad ideas" the way progressives feel about dudes playing "Devil's Advocate" today...they were uncomfortable with it, even hostile to it and more than willing to shut it down. Because it's morally wrong. The church could not separate moral teaching from scientific research. Basically research is just learning right? Right?

This relationship is why Galileo got in trouble for talking about his research. Why Kepler likewise faced issues for his research.

Fast-forward to the 1700s and the Royal Society (in England) has decided that science, with all its recent inventions and discoveries, is so amazing, it will clearly one day prove God exists. In other words, where medieval Christians thought Christianity simply described reality, 1700s Christians were increasingly disinterested in the idea that faith might involve a "leap of faith" or "believing because it is absurd" as Tertullian would have put it...and far more interested in the idea that science would just make faith obsolete (which they thought of as "science confirming faith". Although why you would need faith in something if you simply knew it existed is beyond me.

That's why later ideas like evolution became a giant threat. Even medieval Christians probably would have censored the idea and burned Darwin or something, but 1800s Christians were additionally convinced that this is a threat to faith were medieval Christians probably would have just thought of it as a threat to the easily impressionable. That's were the full-blown panic mode comes from: these people conceive of scientific truth as something that threatens their own position, their own "faith" and certainty.

That's were the "follow blindly" idea comes from. To a medieval Christian, even a Christian of the 1600s, the idea of following blindly was not on the table. People back then didn't do the horrible things they did out of blind following (I mean sure, there were people who did do that, just as every culture produces people who do what others tell them without thinking), they did these horrible things because it was the most authoritative, well-sourced information available at the time. As far as medieval people knew, male "sodomy" was a contagious social ill that could bring real disease and death into communities. They did not know better. As far as medieval Europeans knew, the wars to recapture the Holy Land were really a conflict that would be decisive for world history. But to a Christian in the 1700s and 1800s? Science would prove God's existence. So science was the battlefield between good and evil. But the more their church lost on that battlefield, the more tempting it was to use the idea of the "leap of faith" (a mental tool to build an unconditional commitment to doing the right thing) as a mental gymnastics tool to not have to ask self-critical questions (to "follow blindly out of faith" but as a good thing). The many scholars and inquisitors who spent centuries trying to justify religious teachings or to stop people from blindly following false preachers probably would have turned in their graves had they witnessed this development.

\* Socrates was put to death by Greek religious authorities for aseby (insulting the gods). However, this was due to his disruption of Greek society by asking questions considered subversive and undermining traditional authority on purpose. That's not the same as the Spanish Inquisition worrying about heretical strands of Christianity or the pope telling soldiers to cleanse the Holy Land of unbelievers in a Holy War. If you look up religious wars and conflicts, very few of them are started by religions with no interest in saving the world. Even the 4 sacred wars of Ancient Greece started over conflicts involving land ownership rather than some desire to get other people to believe the same.

The more I learn about judaism the more I wonder where tf christianity got all its bad shit. Why is divorce a sin in christianity when judaism has recognized the right to divorce for nearly a millennia and has codified religious laws for it. Why does christianity consider sex to be dirty (to the point where puritans considered it a sin to enjoy having sex with your own spouse) when in judaism it's considered holy and it's a literal mitzvah to have sex with your spouse on the sabbath. Why does christianity consider it a sign that you're faithless if you question your religion when in judaism that's considered an essential part to developing your faith. I'm probably stating the obvious here but I still can't get over the fact that there's no historical basis to any of this shit before christianity started, it's like christians just said "hey guys what if we took the torah and built a new religion around it but this time it was actively hostile to human life"

[kfeinf-29jcdei]

I figured out a thing and now I just feel like dora the explorer. No real accomplishment but my own dance with my own backpack THAT I MADE DANCE WITH ME and a fox who steals enough to have a felony. Congratulations, you sing your own songs now too. No help unless we click on your destination for you. Kinda racist, isn't it? Why can't she have a friend with no criminal activity regularly and one more friend that's a person or animal and not her own possessions. YIKES that's evil. That's an only child too, man she's gotta have a shitty home life where is her mother and shit?

Anyway. It's a weird thing I had to like look up the entirety without finishing or going too far into detail to preserve time, world war 2 and then the cold war a little bit. I had no idea Stalin was so horrible he just killed anyone even like the men he used to kill like he wasn't even Hitler, he just gave less than the fucks Hitler had from his drugs and shit. That's my personal opinion people are BAT SHIT on a mission with continuous use of less than he did regularly or can be anyway. So, how is it Christianity and THE VATICAN BEING PUT AWAY ALONE AS A LITERAL LIKE SEPARATE ENTITY. OUT OF COUNTRY ANYONE OF THEM. JUST A FUCKING. ONLY. A. RELIGIOUS. ENTITY.

THOSE CREEPY CREEPS DID STUFF BACK THEN AND LEMME TELL YOU. I know a person who knows how those people operate with like secret secrets secretly hidden in the place that was forgotten by God and remembered by a dead guy who personally knew Jesus. Just by not talking about it. Over time, yes, they're men who wanted their way. With what he told me, I went hold on Stalin separated the Vatican and all. So LOOK AT US. MURICA, MAKE THEM BABIES CUZ POOR PEOPLE HAVE BEEN POOR OVER AND OVER WOOHOO THE RIGHT KIND OF (this is too inflammatory and opinionated but I think most minorities) THAT DIDN'T HAVE A VICTUM MIND SET MY DADDY DON'T LIKE ARE RAISIN BABIES AND FUCKIN LIKE RABBITS YEEEEEHOOOOO.

Like....if it made no sense to keep demonizing the people who aren't like so called church approved gay trans native what have you, why not figure out what God says? NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN TOLD BY GOD GAYS TRANSGENDERS AND ALL THE REST aren't accepted at the human level. When is it anywhere? I mean, I always hoped and wished I'd see this in person. Because "Wait, you didn't hear the good news about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?" Virgin birth or not, um he ended a lot of people's involvement with Judaism IDC if he was human or an immortal being whatever. They listened to him teach and preserved the message.

Here's what I was made to understand, personally. sodom and gomorrah, the wrath of the divine being we know as God wasn't men having sex with adult men. Men who were raised into homophobic lives went batshit crazy, and it was normal to have children work and what not. Guess what happened? They were somehow (the ones committing pedophilia of course) being overcome with the whatever it is that causes men to rape as a result of a power trip. Then they went well this is a small human, and I have this now and it's better than what they did have or could have. Children in sexual servitude? Oh level the city to the ground and turn who looks at it into useless BS that has no value and won't even stay standing. So how did we get away from that? Idk the Catholics have the methods of prayer the most spot on of them and Christianity idk about Judaism at all. The rest are close in their own ways, but ITS OLD MEN KEEPIN OLD MENS SECRETS AND THEY MIGHT NOT KNOW. THEY PROBABLY BELIEVE REALLY REALLY HARD IN STUFF.

If there's a God just fucking put whatever telepathy everyone found out about in all the nationalism funded research that all of the big countries I believe had something of. We had MK ultra! We still have shit tons of regular people just regular ole people who can do that shit just once in a while boom I did this drug I see you and sucks cause I'm getting all that info out somewhere. God bless who has the ability to communicate it. IM PRAYING FOR THE GROUP OF LITERAL PSYCHOPATHIC DEAD MENS BULLSHIT COMING OFF OF THE RELATIONSHIP THAT THE WORLD HAS WITH RELIGION. I know America is big and loud with these abortion restrictions. If I get pregnant fuck it idgaf who it was he fucking raped me, and I was going through torture. Jail time? Good, keep me with their dicks in jail instead anyway. Look at my logic there, with a few people on my side out loud I'd have instant ignorant support. If women literally just got the ability to restrict access to sexual intercourse like as a sudden attack we could mind fucks them into their own hell or prison after prison.

Maybe if religious bullshit is talked about....maybe this will have nothing to hurt the perpetuating politicians and officials and the whole supreme court at least who went yeah we can do this evil thing...dun dun, or just a little. Let it fizzle out and give up or till the bitter endz make history and be remembered as a random power money and more power hungry asshole with no repercussions or accountability. We will see! Oh, it only keeps going the way you want so long. We get away with a lot with our own people from any government level. It's like a unintentional motivation I think. They're gonna have these people either missing from history or another "THIS WAS ALMOST ANOTHER SLAVERY. FOR A LITTLE BIT IT WAS. LOOK AT THE AFFECTED PEOPLE! SHAME SHAME SHAME DONT SPEAK THEIR NAMES OUT LOUD EW."

I can only repeat it so many times. Maybe God will help, never know. Good big giant clear cut in all languages maybe even sign anyone and anything can see and go "oh good people are all people." Could happen. It'd be cool without the prophet going through the whole entire Bible type thing. I mean why was all of the old testament like....Noah had something to do with Jesus right? I don't remember. What was that? Why? It was a sadists story. God did a thing he never does too like wow ok, kill the girl children, you didn't! Good, I was wrong. UM NO. God made all the breathing things and the plants. No capacity for it. Who else was in there talking? Wtf? They didn't even keep a dinosaur that was small. So we have no mention anyhow. Like I have more opinions but they're too much of a thing you wanna stab a bigger version of church.

Also, if witchcraft is not good what are the Catholics doing on TV? Look up Norse pagans, find the deity Freya okay. Animals, she loves the animals it's tame and you can't deny it! Find me a simple little bit of a cleansing routine with one. Thing. To. Cleanse. With. Compare it to all the smoking shit and the hand motions and the oils and all of it. Sir, you're wearing stuff women were burned for dancing in around fire in Salem and doing LESS. What. Is. This. Shit.