![This Drag Queen Story Hour Organizer [1260x1263 - 183KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/B8pVcS.jpg){kind=link}
who are all ultimately led by the nose by the same group involved in early Christianity.
I plan on doing a longer post to address this intuition you've called attention to, as well as to another claim you made in Pt. 1, but I don't have the time tonight. I will do it tomorrow - probably.
But I was aroused enough by this that I had to take a second to clap back with one thought: it cannot be overstated how dialectically opposed Christianity is to Judaism, in a way that many moderns do not appreciate, largely on account of the fact that they just don't really see the theological points of difference. My shallower side, somewhere down in my belly, wants to say: thanks, Protestantism. It's not that simple, but it's also got a lot of truth behind it.
One thing to note is that Greece was massively influenced by Egypt. I will try to get into why this Egypt-Grecian duo figures so heavily in the conflict with Judaism, but suffice it to say that what the philosophy of the Hellenes is, is Egyptian in origin. In the esoteric literature of the Greeks, they make this eminently clear. They even personify the Egyptian vector of their thought as a figure called Hermes Trismigestus, who they antedated to the time of Moses - and if I can just spitball for a moment, I don't think the fact they made Hermes a contemporary of Moses was any accident at all. These 'be fightin' words'.
There are also some Rabbinic commentaries from much later that really help to enlighten the way the Jews saw the Greeks.
But, to finish for the night, I want to stress that, given what I've just said above:
He was Hellenized for one.
This is cosmically important.
I'm even going to go as far as saying that for Christianity, what Christ introduced which was conciliable with the Greek, was far more important to Christian thought than the Judaized parts. The entire difference between the way Christianity and Judaism understands the Logos depends upon it.
Rome which is generally accepting of other religions makes a policy change and starts throwing Christians to lions. Maybe there was a reason for it.
Certainly there is a reason. Rome tolerated other religions only insofar as they also honored the Roman gods, and in particular the divine status of the Roman high pontiff, or the Caesar. Christianity didn't, and they were small enough in number, while also being without a 'homeland', that their presence in Rome was a problem which could be handled differently than that of the Jews. The Jews had far greater numbers, and they occupied lands that required administration under a prefecture. The Romans were not throwing the Jews to lions, and the reason for this is not one having to do with Christian proselytizing only, but stems from politics and the fact that Christianity had incorporated the wisdom of the Greeks - a synthesis that made it quite attractive for Westerners who'd been versed in that thinking for half of a millennium.
They had it forced on them by the state and a group of enthusiastic goy fanatics led by a core Jewish leadership.
My opinion would be that Rome recognized, after 300 years of trying to snuff out the Christian flame, that it would be more expedient to unite a destabilized empire under the Roman Church, and given the vast problems they were already experiencing with their fringe constituents, to push on them a new united monotheistic tradition.
You simply cannot do that with Judaism, for many reasons, not the least reason being how litigious and rule-based they are. Judaism is a fucking nightmare of laws and mitzvahs and the most particular habits. It doesn't proselytize well. Again, given the Christian presence in Rome and the neighboring regions, it was just an expedient.
The Jewish Christians
You gotta pick one. These are fundamentally different things. Again, I think the reason they can be connected so casually and so simply, and why they so often are in the modern era, is people don't grasp (a) the great trick that 'secularism' has actually been, and (b) the true distinctions between these worldviews. Consider one thing for just a moment. I truly don't even know how relevant it is, but it's occurring to me as I type this. The Jews don't proselytize Judaism. Ever. They spread secular ideologies which, unlike the religious laws themselves, are not preservative, but are revolutionary for its own sake. Christianity proselytizes its own affirmed truth, for the sake of which most of its earliest adherents went to willing and gruesome deaths. I don't see the shit pushers behind SJW politics willing to be boiled in oil.
I know that the attempt has been made at Poal just as much as it was on Voat to say that Christianity is a 'socialistic' cognate of today's Communistic ideologies, but this just isn't the case. It comes from very unsophisticated understanding of Christian doctrine. (I'm speaking generally here, and not condescendingly - why would I expect anybody to pursue a sophisticated understanding of something they don't believe in...)
At least part of the problem has to do with essentializing the faiths themselves. It's arguable that this is possible. I'm sure that PS would probably rebuke me for saying that it's the wrong thing to do, but I truly believe we need to stop treating both Christianity and Judaism in terms of their 'essences', and begin treating both of these like hermeneutics, as processes. Christian should stop being a noun, and become an adjective, and a process, because I think its essence lies with its being an interpretation of reality. The same goes for Judaism. So when someone wants to slander Christianity as a kind of 'socialism with religious iconography', I can't help but think: you cannot see past but a single level of interpretation, and even on that single one you're doing a half-assed job. Neither of these traditions was ever understood according to a univocal hermeneutical system, ever. Medieval Europe is a fantastic example of the sophistication with which Christianity was once understood.
So at least part of this historical and cultural phenomenon that I think is causing people to psychologically equate Christianity with a Judaic character as absolutes (as nouns) comes from a diminished - and now impoverished - spiritual paradigm for the whole of humanity. That Christianity has a Jewish historical and geographical point of origin is far from the most significant part about it, but it's sufficient for people to see it as somehow intoxicated and irredeemable because of those connections. In order to think that way, you must look at both Communism and Christianity as imaginary products or ideological weapons, and while it may be true for the former, there is no coherent way to argue it for the latter. The Jews despised Christ, and still do. Their battle against the Catholic church is sufficient evidence that at no point, across two millennia, literally from the beginning, did Jews ever have control of Christianity.
Moreover, it makes very little sense to invent Christianity or become Christians, hand it off to Rome, who then wipes your Holy City off the map and destroys the literal heart of your religious tradition in 70 A.D., throwing you away from God's place on earth and out into the steppes or into eastern Europe.
I went a little longer here than I'd planned. If I am still inspired, I might try to do something a bit more organized tomorrow to try and demonstrate why they are so different, and why I believe this world is a lot less secular than it puts on.
But I was aroused enough by this that I had to take a second to clap back
As I said before, I dont really want to insult or destroy christian belief system. So apologies if you do take offence. Im just trying to logically work out what makes these people tick and the more I think about the early christian period, the more parallels I seem to draw between that that ideological shift and the current one.
You pointed out that they know what they are doing because they think god punishes them for being bad, but I considered this, and I think they really do lack self awareness, like the cuckoo. When they say God punishes them, its because they didn’t follow some niggling little rule like eating meat off the dairy plate. It isnt because they parasitize people, because their religion teaches that it is just and right that they should rule over (parasitize) people—in fact he commands it. Its not against God’s law to parasitize the goy. Its against god’s law to break kosher, or not keep the sabbath.... stupid shit like that. That’s the religious ones anyway.
The secular commie ones are pretty much the same. They don’t recognize that trying to colonize other peoples country with communist cells is wrong. Their belief is the communism is great and homosexuality is great and all their agenda is just great and that communism fails because somewhere along the way goys fuck up on the implementation.
I reassert that, like the cuckoo, they are not aware that they are parasites. They believe they are victims and they believe that they are a spiritual elect. Even the secular ones think they are morally better than everyone else. I think judaism gives justifications for their naturally revolutionary and exploitive behaviors. I believe the lore of progressive secular jews also does. Two ideologies that fit their evolutionary strategy and natural strengths well.
You point out that christianity is diametrically opposed to judaism. I am not well versed in the theology of either. But it occurs to me the communism conflicts with judaism in a lot of ways too. And like with christianity, communism is not an exclusive race based religion. It proselytizes— everyone can be a communist. Even that everyone must be a communist or that everyone is destined to be a communist in the final phase of history.
I think communism has something similar to christian salvation. It preaches that government can end the cruelty and disparity of evolution. That government can create a perfectly egalitarian utopia with no poverty. This is absurd since poverty is a relative state. But anyway, the comparisons with christianity are pretty obvious.
Communism can work on a small scale with a genetically homogeneous population sometimes. So can christianity.
But when christians propose to save everybody in africa by giving them all our money or bringing them here to be christianized they assume its going to fix africans of their more problematic behavior. But it doesn’t. Same with communism. Because communist culture, like christian culture, doesnt change genes. Even if you explain to blacks the hellenistic or egyptian philosophical underpinnings of christianity, they are still going to rob your house.
Im being a bit flippant, I know. But it strikes me that when you say that people just don’t understand christian doctrine correctly because they havent had the hermaneutics explained to them properly, it sounds like some communists SJWs or antiracists, who keep telling me I need to be educated better on why some women have penises. What seems to me superficially as a problematic aspect of christian belief— an achilles heel like “Turn the other cheek” or “render unto caesar” or “love blacks and whites the same”— christians will tell me is not an achilles heel because Im just not educated in scripture or doctrine. But I see the same explanation used for many other belief systems, especially these BLM-SJW-LGBT activists: “You need to educate yourself”. Its like, no, I don’t. You want me to be indoctrinated.
At the end of the day jews will act like jews, goys will act like goys, chinks will act like chinks, etc. Antiracism cant fix racial disparity because it doesnt change DNA. Not for dozens of generations anyway. And hellenization doesnt change jews. They were selected for a parasitic set of traits before christ showed up. These early christian jews ( yes, Im okay with that word and I dont find it to be a contradiction) changed many aspects of their jewish belief system, largely abandoned the racial aspects of their worship of god. But like secular communist jews, guys like Paul and Peter and the writers of the gospel were still acting like jewish people do. Revolutionary.
Like today with communism, they had produced an ideology that had huge appeal to gentiles. Like today, they built a broad coalition of followers. You explain that the Romans singled out Christianity because it was too attractive to many plebians. I agree. But it seems they didn’t want to co-exist, they wanted to convert everyone and as soon as they were in power, they tyrannically forced their beliefs on the people. Don’t you think when you argue that the decision was just a matter of “doing the sensible thing” to ensure stability, you are being very biased? These leftist jackasses are trying to force their retarded anti-racist, pro-tranny nonsense on everyone. Jam it down our throats or else. But for stability of course. Now that they’ve installed Joe Biden, they are calling for unity. On their terms. Do you not see how its the same thing ?
So the question is, if parasitic jews have survived as a species for so long by following their endogamist, ethnocentric religion, how did it serve some of them to start a new religion, convert all the goys, destabilize the empire and then simply hand off christianity to the goys? Arguably it didnt but because I dont think that they are conscious that their revolutionary behavior is harmful or exploitive — I dont think christ’s disciples felt they were setting out to exploit or harm the roman empire. They were consciously rejecting some of those aspects from traditional judaism. But they were still ethnic jews. They didn’t consider the damage they would do to other people’s cultures and way of life because they are pushy.
I dont know how many ethnic jews were really running the church by the 300s. Maybe they were already comopletely assimilated into the gentile christian population by then. Certainly after the empire adopted christianity, many christians would have benefited immensely in status and wealth. Earlier christians, jewish or otherwise, would have experienced some persecution. But knowing how jews tend to exagerate persecusion, Im forced to question some of that narrative.
One might ask, how does the secular jew benefit from pushing communism and marrying a goy or a black? If jews keep doing that they will assimilate completely. If there is no endogamous jewish population seeding the world with jews that become secular communists, secular communism will eventually be “handed off” to the goy, and it will change to suit the goy, just as christianity has. Christianity really does not have a judaic character, generally, anymore, because it has changed. I was raised catholic. We never read the bible even. Alot of catholic doctrine just is not in the bible. It was added later by Aquinas or Augustine or someone. A goy.
Anyway I do think jewish christians had decendants who benefited from christianity even if they ceased to be ethnically particularly jewish . And jews themselves have benefited in both christian and islamic societies by holding an honored place in those religions. It wasn’t however a plan because jews are not always consciously strategizing to put one over on us, although it seems like it sometimes.
But back to jews in general. I do think they do coordinate, they do transmit information to each other on how to behave. Even though their behavior is very situational and looks like it might require a lot of planning I think the message is very short— a chain mail letter if that letter was very short: go right, not left. Jews have a neural architecture that is highly similar to one another so they are going to behave the same way in many many situations.
Blacks did not evolve to steal nikes. But they keep doing it because they have a gene or genes that make them act similarly when they see nikes. Jews have a gene that makes them act similarly when they see drag queen story hour.
I dont think they are better coordinated. They are highly specialized at social skills and they are a very genetically homogeneous group so they are more likely to think the same way about a thing. So they coordinate better in certain cultural areas. And as revolutionaries, they are not really individualists but contrarians to whatever the traditional cultural rules of a host society espouse.
I know PS and E Michael Jones will say they act the way they do because they are evil or perhaps Satan guides them. That explanation obviously doesnt satisfy me. But what do you think? Do you think this is largely a genetic phenomenon? A learned behavior from their culture. If you do think its genetic, do you think it is possible to identify the genes responsible for the “problems” we see in them? It seems like that should be an objective for many more scientifically oriented WNs, but I never see anyone talking about this. I realize it would be hard to get a grant for this sort of work, but someone needs to get to the bottom of the problem and it has got to be a genetic one imo.
First of all, there's no need to worry about criticizing Christianity or offending us. Remember, not only did I start out doing that, but throughout all of this ARM has at various points been about as insulting as one can be. If I recall correctly, the only time that PS said he'd had enough was when ARM began blaspheming the Holy Mother in really, really profane ways that had nothing to do with the discourse. I know that you're expressing something different, which is that you don't want to be offensive. What I'm saying is that so long as you are making the point because it is based on your beliefs, as opposed to the plain intent to insult someone, you're fine to be as critical as it's necessary for you to say what you think is true.
Both PS and King, who have a longer history with Christianity at stake than me, have heard probably 95% of the possible criticisms ever levied against Christianity. You articulate yours in a unique and intelligent way, but that doesn't change the fact that the argument from Christianity expressing an elaborate Jewish subversion tactic is something they've fielded before. In fact, my first full-fledged day at Poal saw myself and PS dealing with a similar objection from Doglegwarrior. Note, that doesn't mean I'm putting that argument, in itself, into a single camp. Any argument can be made at different levels of sophistication. His was primarily a reactive sort of "Pagans unite!" position. Yours is smarter.
You pointed out that they know what they are doing because they think god punishes them for being bad, but I considered this, and I think they really do lack self awareness, like the cuckoo. When they say God punishes them, its because they didn’t follow some niggling little rule like eating meat off the dairy plate.
This topic has had me pinning myself to the wall, and I'm beginning to understand better why Jordan Peterson simply said, 'I can't', when asked to explain the Jews in a Q&A. I'm not sure if you have seen that segment. He is asked to deal with 200 Years Together, and he struggles for a moment in silence before finally declining to answer. A lot of people, myself included, wanted to chalk this up to a mask-off situation, exposing Jordan as a subversive. I don't think you can spend years at Voat without that being your immediate impulse. But I realize now that it really is just a massively profound and stifling subject. There are points I want to make, here and there, but I can't connect them into a coherent, unified answer. That's the trouble, because doing that would be the same as having an answer to history, religion, and philosophy all wrapped up in a single explanation: of what The Jew is.
I think that E. Michael Jones and PS are both correct when they say that what it is to be a Jew is to be that which rejects Christ. But that's coming from inside of a deep, deep hermeneutic structure with many levels. It's like by the time you get to that point where you understand the claim in a deep, internal sense, you may not be aware of how many levels you've passed through which would themselves be potential stopping points. Like, getting to Christ, and to what rejection of Christ is, is profoundly complex. I'm not just saying that like charlatans do, where they allude to secrets and complexity just to obfuscate truth and profit from never having to be clear.
I truly believe the Jews are a mystery in the deepest sense. If Christ is the Christian mystery, complete with an earthly cognate in the mysteries of His Church, then we must acknowledge that the Jew is also a mystery. In other words, if Christ is a mystery, then so to the rejection of Christ must also represent a mystery with multi-tiered interpretations and correspondences in visible reality.
I think if you dropped your own beliefs and personal identity for a moment, and truly stepped back from the picture by about 30,000 ft, forgetting what you think about Jews, you could look at how perplexing the Jew is and appreciate that it is larger than life - a legitimate mystery. The Jew goes beyond merely confounding us. Islam confounds us, but they do not represent a mystery, right? The fact that we have broken so much bread on this issue, and that we could construe history as one way or another moving according to the Jewish and Christian dialectic, then if you've stepped back far enough, you can acknowledge that what was meant by the 'chosen people' is potentially more profound than a self-deluded group of people. Now, none of that is meant to suggest that history begins or ends with the Jews - rather, it's pointing to something more abstract. I, for one, am fairly certain that even the history of human civilization goes backward further than the current archaeological consensus. There is no real way to think that the Jews, in name, go back 40 or 60,000 years into the past as an explicit historical object.
But that's the point, because what the Jew is does, as rejection of Christ. It's that allegorical figure of Cain, it's the spiritual reality embodied by that symbol, and it has to do with an orientation to physical nature and the Logos.
Whatever the Jew is has gained an expression in various ways across time, but which seems to always find its way, like the attraction of some law of nature, into the most 'ready vessels' for it. The Jews as historical object are not the same before or after the Babylonian captivity. Nor were they the same after the diaspora. For example, and I will try to lay this out more explicitly in a different post, the modern Jewry that we think of as the 'Universal Reformers' trying to purify the world are mostly Ashkenazim emanating from eastern Europe. So then you begin talking about the Khazar influence, and you start looking at the medieval and pre-modern area of Germany and Poland, where there was a massive massive element of mysticism and magic inside their culture. This is where Hassidism originated.
So complicating things even further is that the Jews today are not just a single vector. Some of them are the mystical reformers of the world. Others don't see themselves as the messiah, but currently await the messiah.
I mean, just think about trying to describe the Jew in terms of a natural kind. Try it physically. Impossible. Try it religiously. Impossible.
The only level of reality where it seems appropriate to be able to do so, in a way that actually means something, is to do it at a spiritual level, at a level where we are describing how these people approach the world, as ultimate reality.
Even if you were to find one gene that was common to all ethnic Jews, and never present in non-Jews, do you think this would give you an answer? In the click-whirr sense where human beings are a black box that says: protein-coding sequence goes IN, and this behavioral tendency comes OUT, perhaps you'd be satisfied. But both Christians and Jews would recognize that any reality at the level of the physical has a correspondence in immaterial reality. Genes are not merely genes, but something like a language or a Word in three dimensions. There is a higher order to reality, and these physical correspondences can hardly explain things at the level of detail that's relevant. At best, they could lead somebody to some exterminative conclusion. The final solution.
And certainly many people have come to that conclusion, but have been confounded that, like a hydra, when we cut a head off, we get two, so on and so forth. No amount of persecution has ever killed that hydra, but only pushed history toward elevating the Jew.
On the genetic level, truly step back and think about the assumptions. I freely admit that genetic arguments sound convincing from inside of a given paradigm, but can be laid bare if you articulate what it actually is you're saying. If an alien showed up without any concept of genes and asked you to explain reality, you'd say something like: "All of this? There are just packets of little nucleotide phosphates that are battling each other. Yeah, certain groups of those molecules get together and make a certain thing, like a physical person to go out and do survival things to fight on their behalf, and the best packet of molecules is winning. Winning, what, you ask? Survival. Existence. Yeah, if you insert just one different molecule-word into the overall genetic language it totally alters how their person-armor fights for them. It's like adding software to the program. But, why, you ask? I already told you, to be, to keep making more of themselves. Yeah, basically, lifeless packs of molecules. No they don't want to live, per se, it just happens that they do. But at the same time, they want to live, but the wanting happens only at the level of the person."
The point is when you really get to the abstract level of philosphizing about what we really think is going on in the genetic view of things, it gets just as out there as appealing to another paradigm that suggests a term like 'spiritual', but the latter is just so loaded that people reject it. What they don't realize is they are appealing to something immaterial too, even when they think they're being good physicalists and only talking about physical stuff like genes. They just bury their appeal to abstract, immaterial properties using scientific lingo.
So you have to think about the spiritual correspondence. What does it mean at a level that is invisible? What are these people or the Spirit that moves them?
I have to go. I have been fasting for two days and I am going to spend a day eating sushi haha. I rambled a bit here, but I'd like to do something a bit clearer on this topic soon. So don't consider this as a comprehensive reply to your comment.
I have been fasting for two days
Lent is a good time for that! And Sunday is a good time to break fast, since all Sundays are feast days and it's unlawful to fast on a feast day.
Poor ARM, he really did not deserve to get banned. Too many bans around here. Did he ever come back in a new incarnation?
The Odin crowd— I don’t object to their rejection of Christianity but I wish they wouldn’t be so rude about it. They act like being a Christian is the same as being a jewish handmaiden and I just totally disagree. WNs cant afford to exclude christians, they make up the bulk of decent non communist white people. I also question their sincerity about the pagan shit. It seems to be a cosmetic thing and not something they have faith in. These guys do not believe in Valhalla. They are just larping as vikings.
Jordan Peterson is not stupid. I dont know really how JQ’ed he is but he’s noticed as much as the rest of us had typically noticed before voat or pol. They are not the same. He also knows his career is toast if he even tries to tackle that enigma. Jordan is deeply indoctrinated in a religion created by jews, psychology. So he might have trouble seeing some things that are more obvious to us. Sometimes he has said things in passing about jews which makes me think he knows whats up. Who knows. I also happen to think he is a bit of a shill for his own brand which annoys me.
I dont define jews by their rejection of Jesus, which I think is situational. They are programmed to be subversive toward whatever the dominant religion/culture is in their vicinity. The pharissees hated christian jews because they were ideologically schismatic and they were converting goyim into what was basically a break off version of judaism from their perspective. This is dangerous to an endogamous religion. They probably lost a lot of jews to the christians initially and were loathe to loose more of their population to it, since those jews do go on to assimilate into the goyim.
They have claimed in the talmud that Mary was a prostitute and Jesus was conceived when she had her period. Which is a big deal with them lol. But I think these stories are told so that young jews will not convert. Maybe that is why they are so subversive. If they had a more ambiguous attitude toward the dominant culture, they would have been completely assimilated long ago.
Yes they are a mystery that does seem beyond explanation at times. Spooky. But many other phenomena that seemed beyond explanation a century or two ago are now well understood. I have faith in natural explanations. I believe there is a rational explanation for jews and many other phenomena that may not be available to us now but will be in the future. Hopefully. And to me, the only plausible hypothesis is genetics/evolution.
I see cultural memes as part of the evolution of human populations—culture and genes are the two mediums of human data influencing each other in the context of the evolution of a society like jews or muslims. Of course its harder to nail down a cultural meme as raw data. It cant be sequenced as a set of values like DNA. The spookier, more “mysterious” aspects of jewish behavior are those cultural memes that fit them well because of their genetics. Cultural memes seem like spooky supernatural things, but they are just information that lives in people’s brains.
both Christians and Jews would recognize that any reality at the level of the physical has a correspondence in immaterial reality.
I would explain this as memes.
I actually think Islam can be kinda mysterious itself. It used to baffle me why they are so violent, and love to blow stuff up and chop off people’s heads. I thought how does this religion work? It seems to make people instantly violent. Hindus are not terribly violent. But muslim Pakis are. Philipino Christians never blow up shit. Philipino mulisms do. Does Islam magically make people violent? Just from reading the quran? I was dubious that a book could change the behavior of entire countries so profoundly.
Then I thought about polygamy and how it creates a large disparity between males in terms of reproductive access to females, and how very violent males can be reproductively successful in that environment and how this disparity also incentivizes conquest of non muslim neighbors with pools of available females, killing two birds with one stone. So this is a reasonable explanation for me, a working theory anyway, of why muzzies are so violent. A phenomenon that seems mysterious but perhaps has an explanation rooted in darwinian selection.
Likewise monogamy seems like a plausible explanation for why white guys are just a little bit nicer on average and non rapey and non violent. Mostly. Except when they collectively agree to kill the shit out of the guys in the next village.
But back to the topic. No, jews are not exactly the same as they were 3000 years ago in Exodus. Theyve picked up a few genes since then. Obviously the sephardics and the ashkenazis, the mizrahi etc are distinguishible genetically. But they are at least 50% the same.
They had traits for reading/writing profieciency back then as it seems other canaanites like the phoenecians did. Bronze age. And they had already adopted a parasitic itinerant strategy by then. Once you adopt an itinerant lifestyle you are going to just keep picking up additional traits that lend themselves to itineracy. Like the gypsies and the irish travelers. Deception, parasitism. And they continued to select for high iq because of the requirements for talmudic scholarship. Following the religion has caused these genetic traits in this group. If you took swedish people and had them follow judaism for 3000 years you would get a lot of the same traits. I think there are genetic studies that show that jews took over the khazar nation but not mix much with it.
I mean, just think about trying to describe the Jew in terms of a natural kind. Try it physically. Impossible.
An initial founding population that has diverged in to sub-populations in terms of genetics and behavior.
No amount of persecution has ever killed that hydra, but only pushed history toward elevating the Jew.
It seems like this. That is becuase they are smarter than us and they whine more than us. They are programmed by their genes to live off of us while professionally whining about their victimhood 24/7. They seem almost supernaturally whiney. But there is a natural explanation imo. And they die just like everyone else. There is more of other people than them. If all other groups learn how they work they are in trouble. They always need another sympathetic nation to support them.
I really understand what you are saying about the difficulty of resolving cultural phenomena like spiritual concepts to genetics and brains. It is very abstract and weird. But I tend to think of this paradox as similar to the hardware of a computer upon which an operating system runs. Genes (largely) determine the architecture of a computer like the memory system or the cpu. An operating system runs on top of that. You can run different operating systems on the same hardware. You can run the same operating system on different computer architectures. You will get different results with all of these scenarios. When you turn on the computer, it just looks like Windows. But it doesnt run the same way.
Sometimes when you see software running, it seems like magic. But when you look at the code you can see how it all works. We just need to see the code. Lets reverse engineer these bitches.
I dont know what the solution is. But if we can lay bare exactly where these behaviors are coming from we can screen for them. Maybe we will find that some jews do not have so many “bad” genes. We might be able to accept a lot of half and quarter ones as well.
Christianity is of course a way of seeing the world, but it can't be reduced to this. As with Scripture, so with the Church - there are many ways of understanding it. All are true, all are important.
I just finished reading Borella's Secret of the Christian Way. A truly enlightening work. I found the "Threefold Body of Christ" doctrine truly fascinating, but its depth can only be appreciated once someone already has an understanding of how the Church understands itself - and very few people, her enemies especially, actually understand the Church.
There is the Church Militant (those still fighting for salvation against the real risk of damnation, i.e. Christians in the world), the Church Suffering (those who are guaranteed salvation, but who still have impurities and attachments to be purged, i.e. those in Purgatory), and the Church Triumphant (those who have attained salvation, i.e. those in heaven). Borella, drawing on a couple of Medieval theologians, associates this threefold division of the Church - which is the Mystical Body of Christ - with the threefold stages of Christ's Body, as unassaulted (Corpus integrum), as enduring His Passion (Corpus passum), and as glorified / resurrected (Corpus gloriosum). And there is a final threefold division, the Corpus natum, as born, Corpus eucharistum, as sacrament, and Corpus mysticum, as Church. Just as the pre-Passion, Passion, and Glorified Body of Christ is the same Body throughout, so too is the "pre-sacramental" Church, the Blessed Sacrament, and the Mystical Body of Christ is the same Body. And Borella also points out that, just as the essence of Christianity - which you've referred to here - must always have reference to the Trinity, so too must the existence of Christianity (and thus the Church) always have reference to the Incarnation - to the Body of Christ. And unlike an essence, which can be contemplated intellectually but not directly seen, the Body is just that which is seen. And so if the existence of Christianity is inseparable from the Body, the Incarnation, then it is by this Body that Christians must see the world.
And this is the same Body that the Jews crucified, the same Body that by crucifying, Jewish identity is today defined.
So yes, you rightly point out that Judaism and Christianity are diametrically opposed, not just essentially, but in terms of worldview, of existence, of perception.
I'm currently reading Borella's Christ The Original Mystery. I am only three chapters in, but I'd say it's the best work on philosophy of religion that I've ever read. This man is brilliant. His views on what esotericism is, and the triune hermeneutic, are changing the way I look at reality. If I meant anything by the statement you referred to, it's that what you've said here is itself part of a hermeneutic, a process or a journey if you will. One thing Borella stresses in this work is that we are all both 'within' and 'without' (esoteric and exoteric) at the same time, but not in the same relationship. Meaning there is always a deeper way of moving into the revelatum. I think, for myself, it's that process of coming closer to the essence of the revelation which is the essence of Christianity. I think it is certain that the body, as the existing church itself has an essence. Again, that's certain. But I was speaking more about this concept Christianity itself and its popular usage as a noun - I believe the essence of Christianity is a trifold and active process - of revelatum, esotericism, and exotercism - where Borella identifies the latter two as a relation. One is always moving inward to the revelation, which is the only thing that defines the exoteria. The revelation, in other words, cannot be identified formally with any specific level, least of which is a definite exoteric level. He very much stresses this irreducibly triune process that connects man's soul to the revelation.
(post is archived)