Realitybites said:
Mothra said:
While I understand why you've resorted to revisionist history given your performance in this thread, the reality (no pun intended) is straightforward: this discussion began as criticism of Tucker Carlson's interview and his lack of pushback on an extremist making extreme claims. That's it. A review of the original post makes clear that nobody "opened with a false accusation of antisemitism." You're rewriting the premise because it's easier than defending the interview itself - something you've failed to do throughout this discussion.
You've consistently thrown around accusations of Anti-Semitism throughout this thread. You're Chabad and the ADL's MVP.
Quote:
As for the Talmud, anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of the Jewish religion realizes it isn't a rulebook of approved behavior - it's a massive record of debates, hypotheticals, and disagreements. Pulling isolated lines and presenting them as "what Judaism teaches" is like grabbing random arguments from legal textbooks and pretending they're binding law. It's not how any serious person understands it.
You're missing the point. While the understanding of the Talmud may not be the same as the understanding of the KJV in an IFB church it is the the fact that the arguments are being made is the point. Not every Muslim straps on a suicide vest and blows himself up. Not every Jew believes that the Goyim have animal souls. However both are legitimate points of view according to their respective faiths.
Quote:
On top of that, your claim about "Judeo-Christianity" makes no sense. Judaism and Christianity literally share the Old Testament. That's a basic historical fact, not a controversial opinion. You can argue about differences all you want, but you can't pretend the shared foundation doesn't exist.
While that shared foundation may exist, that's like saying "Mormon-Christianity" because there's a "shared foundation". Pointing to a shared foundation has no meaning without the understanding that the New Covenant invalidated the Mosaic Covenant, the New Testament fulfilled the Old, the Church is now Israel, and Judaism is a pagan religion.
Anyway, that's what the focus is going to be now. Not Tucker Carlson, not me, not antisemitism, just Judaism. The actual teachings of what goes by that name in the modern world. We'll even compare the sections of the Talmud that justify pedophilia to Islamic teaching. Truth is the best disinfectant.
I use the term antisemitism when I see statements or conduct that align with well-known and established antisemitic tropes or reflect hostility toward Jews - nothing more, nothing less. The issue here isn't that I "throw it around," but that you seem unwilling to recognize it under any circumstances.
For example, your associate "Barbearian" has repeatedly shared content - jokes, caricatures, and collective-blame arguments - that fit wellknown antisemitic patterns. I've asked you directly to acknowledge that, and you've declined to do so.
So when you accuse me of using the term loosely, it rings hollow. From my perspective, the real difference is that I'm willing to call out antisemitism when it appears, while you appear unwilling to acknowledge it at all. That contrast speaks for itself.
As for the comparison to Mormonism, Mormonism isn't just another branch growing out of the same textual and historical framework, but instead introduces entirely new scriptures (like the Book of Mormon), and doctrines that depart from historic Christianity.
Judaism, by contrast, isn't an offshoot or later reinterpretation of Christianity - it is the original tradition out of which Christianity arose. As you suggested yourself, Christianity's covenant of grace is a fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant. There's a continuous textual, legal, and interpretive tradition rooted in the Hebrew Bible. Whether one agrees with it theologically or not, it's not analogous to a later movement adding new revelation; it's the preservation and evolution of the earlier covenantal framework itself.
I couldn't care less what your focus is going to be. When you can even refute the basic premise, it is understandable why you've moved on. You've got nothing, so now you're going to try and shift the argument to focus on the Jews. It's no surprise.
It's what antisemites do.
