Yes, because to Latinate writers every group invading Europe out of West Central Asia were Huns. But the Magyars and Huns were very different peoples, if the descriptions of the Huns by earlier writers are accurate.
Nashvillian, Jwitter refugee (1n1m1), retired, loves medieval history & roots music & food & books, she/her, Boomer white/cis/straight trying to help
1,297 followers 945 following 8,248 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Yes, because to Latinate writers every group invading Europe out of West Central Asia were Huns. But the Magyars and Huns were very different peoples, if the descriptions of the Huns by earlier writers are accurate.
Indeed it has.
Citation, please. Because the Magyars conquered the Carpathian Basin (Hungary, more or less) as a single people. The name Hungarians comes from an earlier Turkic name, Onogur.
How is he so adorable even when he’s out of his mind?
I’m just saying not to think that every vessel of Gd’s word is Gd.
Nope, never going to discuss Isaiah with Christians. I told you that. Try it again and I will block you.
Nobody worships the burning bush.
What was that about an establishment of religion? I can’t quite remember.
If you take the text as accurate, then it’s an example of him being wrong.
1) they aren’t false to themselves, but they’re separating from Judaism 2) Jesus is not mentioned in the Tanakh. Not anywhere. I’ve seen your mistranslations and strained interpretations, and they don’t impress me so don’t start 3) the Tanakh isn’t the word of Jesus
That doesn’t make them unbelievers. Any more than Christians believing in Jesus as messiah and son of Gd makes Christians unbelievers—it just makes them not Jews.
Since they were written after the time when large-scale conversion of Gentiles had begun, and when Christianity had begun to separate itself from Judaism, it’s no more preposterous than the reverse. Or are you pointing out that Jesus quoted Hillel a lot?
Wow, interesting characterization of Jews who recognized that Jesus wasn’t messiah. In what way were they “unbelieving”? They knew Jewish scriptures better than anyone who proclaimed Jesus as messiah. Unlike the nascent Christians, they believed in a unitary Gd. To call this unbelief is pretty sus.
The gospels weren’t written by the people whose names they had slapped on them.
When the non-accommodation results in minority group members being shunted to a second track right at the beginning of their careers, which is what the OP described, it’s not just a question of inconvenience.
For me it was the freshness. You could practically taste the grass the cow had eaten. I can taste the difference between raw-milk and pasteurized-milk cheeses even now.
It’s the taste. When I was young & reckless I occasionally drank raw cow’s milk. It’s delicious! Infinitely yummier than pasteurized. Do I now think the danger is worth the taste? Not at all. Do I think it’s okay to endanger kids with it? Big NO. But someone with poor risk assessment might go there.
Wallah!
It is the most important piece of furniture in the room, Mother! Gus needs it to be done properly!
Too weird. Them, not you.
Is that a Jewish school? I can’t make it make sense otherwise.
At least it’s honest. “No, we’re not going to bother with your minority child’s holidays. We just want to know whether they’ll make a fuss about Christmas decorations in the classroom.”
Such a fine actor. May his memory be a blessing.
Shabbat shalom to everyone except people trying to get rid of minority religious practice.
Okay, please start scrutinizing your own traditions about minority religions. You may be surprised at how deeply they’re rooted in the ideas of a majority religion. Feel free to question them. Now I’m going to celebrate my own oppressive, magical Sabbath.
It doesn’t. People who live in a free society get to choose what to wear. There seem to be a lot of obvious points you’re not clear on.
The clothing isn’t magical. It’s traditional. I’m glad I could clear that up for you, too.
They’re not arbitrary, and they’re not privileged (in this context) unless the state enforces them.
No. No one needs to follow a religious rule about headwear if they don’t want to. The society that prevents women who want to wear the headwear from wearing it is oppressive. Glad I could clear that up for you.
How very dare! Shabbat shalom.
I think it’s more due to a misunderstanding of ‘chosenness’
To say that men may not wear kippot or turbans or similar in public is equally biased.
You are taking a side on this. You claim that “the community” isn’t acting out of its own traditions and beliefs. Does “the community” let people walk around naked? Why not, if not that there are traditions and beliefs that public nudity is bad? So why are “the community’s” beliefs privileged?
Yes, the religion that claims that its own clothing traditions are the only “normal” ones, that forces members of other religions to stop wearing what they want in order to conform to what is claimed to be “normal”, that religion is oppressive.
It’s a very culturally Christian take.
Yes, dictating a general common requirement based on one culture is oppressive to the other cultures it’s dictated to. Allowing choice in these matters is the not-oppressive thing to do.
What’s notable is that in later years he spent a lot of time communicating with and apologizing to the US Jewish community and became extremely popular with them.
Exactly this!
Oddly enough, it’s not a PAC. It was founded long before the last 3 letters of its acronym had a separate meaning.
That just wears me out.
Stop confusing his feelings with your facts. He just … he has those feelings!
That’s basing your definition on Christianity as normative, though.
They drop into ongoing conversations.
One of the first thorough histories of Jews in Spain posited a people happy to live as their fathers had, rejecting the thought of Maimonides and other innovators. Evidently it was only the elite who caused dissension in Jewish communities there. OTOH he thought developments in mysticism were a plus
Popes and kings went back and altered all those Greek MSS from before their own time, huh? Good work.
So … don’t use it?
Why on earth does your illustration show Jesus as ethnically/racially different from his fellow Jews, and where’d he get the outfit that’s so different from everyone else’s? Weird.
Clearsky can give you info.
Poor Lucy!
It depends on whether the person has started worshipping a different god. If they haven’t, they are still part of the Jewish people. If they have, they are not part of the Jewish people but are descended from Jews.
Gotta love someone who blocks because you point this out.
It’s an immense stretch, considering that “love your neighbor” comes from what you call the Old Testament.
I don’t think “lack of belief in Gd” shows up in Al Chet.
The Catholic Church?
The Holocaust happened in large part because Jews don’t have a lot of effective ways to influence Western governments. Making Jews responsible for the decisions Christians make is a good way to shrug off your own responsibility.
The trains are running too efficiently.
The idea of a church subservient to secular rulers. The idea that rebellion against authority is against Gd.
Hillary Mantel did her best to change that outlook, but it’s too big a job for one person.
No, I think he genuinely means Thomas Cromwell, the rags to riches scheming guy who oversaw England leaving the Catholic Church. Has to have been a Jew, right?
They think the US brought most members of the Nazi Party here after the war through Operation Paperclip. The generalities, they are large.
But do I profit from this? No. I see friends, and visit museums, and then I open Bluesky while waiting for dinner. Sadly, I am the living embodiment of that “someone is wrong on the internet” cartoon.
Ask Larisa.
Are you suggesting that @shammaiintl.bsky.social is Little Rabbit Foo Foo?
Yes but the reason there were so few Jews able to make that migration was …
Still not a good indicator.
That book @dalassa.bsky.social fisked thought so. It made them out to be the Stasi or something. This may be a common Christian view, for all I know.
Am I? Hmmmm. I’m sure you know. But if you don’t give a shit what I think, why on earth are you spending so fucking much time arguing with me?
Okay, that makes just as much sense as me insisting that all people named Larisa are binary thinkers. They all are.
How is my saying “I agree with you that Israel is practicing both [genocide and apartheid]” denying Kahanist guilt? I do deny that all Zionists are Kahanists, which is where the nuance comes in. And it’s why I agreed with the OP that allowing Gentiles to run Zionist purity tests on Jews is foolish.
No, but you can try. And believe me these assholes (specific people; not all atheists) do try. I didn’t say they were smart.
Who’s the one here with a colonizer mindset? As I said already, you are ignorant of my politics because you can’t admit there’s nuance in the world. I’m against genocide and apartheid, and I agree with you that Israel is practicing both. And I think that binaries are really bad models of thought.
Let’s say A is an atheist and B is a theist. A keeps jumping into discussions that B is having with B’s theist friends, insisting that B acknowledge that atheism is correct and that all religions are sources of evil in the world. A is trying to convert B to A’s worldview. A is also an asshole.
Or what, you’ll block me? You are demonstrating a lot of ignorance in this thread. You’re wrong about my politics just to begin with. And that’s because you aren’t making room for nuance or complexity in your world-view.
They certainly try.
Well, you’re ignorant, but at least you’re unambiguous about it. Which Jews is it you don’t hate again?
That’s probably news to the members of T’ruah, Standing Together, New Israel Fund, etc. I think you may mean all Kahanists.
Well, genocide is a line that should not be crossed. But since the ambiguity in question is about Zionism, not genocide, that’s not relevant. There are Zionists who are unambiguously opposed to genocide and put their lives on the line to try to stop it.
Why do these people all come out when I’m on vacation?
Because there is no complexity or nuance in the real world.
People who have given up Jesus but kept everything else about Christian culture. Including, sadly, the desire to convert everyone they encounter to their beliefs.
Of course not. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t only the early Christians who treated them that way.
To be fair, Chazal also treat David as a prophet. You wouldn’t believe how much he foresaw about the liturgy they were busy creating.
You’re just wrong about this.
The ethnoreligious identity doesn’t include/lead to the genocide going on right now. You’re the only person involved in this discussion who thinks it does. numerous people assure you that you’re wrong, but you don’t say “cool, let’s join together to stop genocide”. You keep picking at the identity.
And your priority is to try to convince Jews that being part of an ethnoreligion is wrong, rather than making alliances with the Jews who also oppose kicking people out of their homes. You do you, I guess.
Okay, that’s a clear definition. Thank you. Now, why is it necessary to argue that Jews are wrong about what constitutes Jewish peoplehood in order to be an anti-Zionist?
How do you define Zionism?
Two different interpretations of the presidency as a bully pulpit.
I have a different criticism, which is that their definition of Zionism isn’t fixed. So anti-Zionism can’t be fixed, either. How can one declare oneself to be for or against an idea that constantly shifts to mean different things?
Your first step should be to stop using US norms. 1) skin color isn’t a boundary within Judaism. 2) Jews weren’t (and in most cases still aren’t) ‘white’ in most of Europe. Hope this helps.
You do have a problem with Jewish people if you don’t let Jewish people define their own ethnicity. Think about the fact that Jewish peoplehood is older than the concept of religion you’re using. Think about the fact that Jewish peoplehood is older than the concept of statehood you’re using.
So you acknowledge that the problem isn’t Israel but the bad faith groups (Kahanists there; Christian ‘Zionists’ in the US) weaponizing it? I think I’m following your logic here but it’s a little fuzzy.
Well, people of bad faith can weaponize anything. The fault is in those people, NT in the individuals, communities, or institutions they’re harming.
Conversion to Judaism is a long process. One of the very first steps is that the rabbi(s) you’re working with will ask you to express what it is about Judaism that attracts you. A response like “I want to bounce people from their homes” even in very coded language will stop the process right there.
Yes, but there are Jewish textual sources that support, e.g., diasporism as well.
The sub-clause is the only reason Bloomberg is reporting on it.
That’s what I was thinking of.
And a collaborator in genocide in yet others, right?
