Bedside Notepad

I feel like this is why it’s so hard for us to bring up problems in the Jewish community regarding colorism and ashkenazi supremacy. There’s so much shit I’ve been through for being Sephardic and visibly middle eastern, but I feel nervous talking about it publicly because I’m worried some goy will see it and will take and turn intracommunity issues into antisemitism.

I think in general though there’s a big difficulty in bringing up privilege certain groups in the Jewish community have. We all have a lot of internal pain that we’re too scared to talk about in fear of it being used as a means to hate, which makes it so hard to actually communicate and fix those issues.

I feel like it’s clear to me that intracommunity colorism within POC communities is not a discussion I have any business getting involved in as an outsider and I don’t understand why gentiles don’t understand that the same holds true for them and Jewish communities.

Because non-Jews feel that Jews and Jewish communities are their property, by dint of supercessionism. Thus, not only are Jewish intracommunity discussions their business in which they have a say, they also feel that they have a veto.

I feel like this is why it’s so hard for us to bring up problems in the Jewish community regarding colorism and ashkenazi supremacy. There’s so much shit I’ve been through for being Sephardic and visibly middle eastern, but I feel nervous talking about it publicly because I’m worried some goy will see it and will take and turn intracommunity issues into antisemitism.

I think in general though there’s a big difficulty in bringing up privilege certain groups in the Jewish community have. We all have a lot of internal pain that we’re too scared to talk about in fear of it being used as a means to hate, which makes it so hard to actually communicate and fix those issues.

I feel like it’s clear to me that intracommunity colorism within POC communities is not a discussion I have any business getting involved in as an outsider and I don’t understand why gentiles don’t understand that the same holds true for them and Jewish communities.

God i love my fellow gay christian people

Again, he’s Jewish, Christians stop appropriating Jewish queer humor, ffs

I swear, Christians will steal anything that isn’t nailed down

I love my people so much.

Am I going crazy why is this “appropriating Jewish humor” like was it not a reasonable thing to infer that non-celebrity twitter user was a Christian.

@thanapo It was extremely unlikely that the non-celebrity Twitter user was Christian because he wrote “G-D” instead of “God.” Not all Jewish people even practice that avoidance, so it would’ve been absolutely wild if some random Christian were doing it.

One might also have noticed the reference to “my foremothers and forefathers” as being another sign that Ephraim isn’t Christian. I haven’t sat in on every Christian denomination out there, but I’ve never heard that phraseology outside of Jewish contexts.

So it’s very unreasonable to infer he’s a Christian.

The issue is appropriation in the sense that there was no pause in which someone asked “what if this weren’t mine? what if I not only were conscious that there are things that aren’t about me or for me, but also could recognise those things when I saw them?” It’s not “appropriation” in the sense of conscious self-entitled consumption of another culture for exoticism, it’s appropriation in the sense of never even having to learn that another culture might have boundaries anyone could or should notice before stomping through.

This is an excellent explanation.

God i love my fellow gay christian people

Again, he’s Jewish, Christians stop appropriating Jewish queer humor, ffs

I swear, Christians will steal anything that isn’t nailed down

I love my people so much.

genuine question (i hope it’s okay to ask! if not, let me know and i’ll delete this), but how is that theft? the rainbow story is also in the bible aka the christian holy text, so if someone doesn’t know that the specific person who made the joke is jewish, it’s not a wild or malicious assumption that he’s christian - especially when made by someone who either is christian or was raised in a predominantly christian society, right?

and i don’t think it’s reasonable to assume any random person would or should know that a random user in a screenshot is jewish- so am i missing something?

Your ignorance of any culture but your own (not spelling out G-o-d is a very widespread Jewish tradition) is… not the flex you think it is.

I swear half the people in the comments are the sort who loudly claim that Rabbeinu Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” is a Christian hymn.

God i love my fellow gay christian people

Again, he’s Jewish, Christians stop appropriating Jewish queer humor, ffs

I swear, Christians will steal anything that isn’t nailed down

I love my people so much.

genuine question (i hope it’s okay to ask! if not, let me know and i’ll delete this), but how is that theft? the rainbow story is also in the bible aka the christian holy text, so if someone doesn’t know that the specific person who made the joke is jewish, it’s not a wild or malicious assumption that he’s christian - especially when made by someone who either is christian or was raised in a predominantly christian society, right?

and i don’t think it’s reasonable to assume any random person would or should know that a random user in a screenshot is jewish- so am i missing something?

Your ignorance of any culture but your own (not spelling out G-o-d is a very widespread Jewish tradition) is… not the flex you think it is.

God i love my fellow gay christian people

Again, he’s Jewish, Christians stop appropriating Jewish queer humor, ffs

I swear, Christians will steal anything that isn’t nailed down

right and Jews have never stolen anything!!

Today in tumblr:

Me: stop misidentifying this Jewish guy as Christian

Tumblr: HOW CAN WE OSTENSIBLY MAKE THIS ABOUT PALESTINE SO WE CAN CALL ALL JEWS THIEVES IN FAVOR OF DEFENDING <checks notes> WHITE AMERICAN CHRISTIANS

y’all are a trip

baffling how much of this site is just conservative protestantism with a gay hat

you know what i’m in just enough of a bad mood that i’m ready to nail my grievances to the church door so let’s fucking go

Thank you for breaking it down like that because so many of us have been saying it but to see a play by play breakdown comparison is just…Thank you.

oh, man, speaking as a queer Christian who gets regular tumblr flashbacks to my childhood in the Bible Belt, YES

-belief that small snippets of text can be analyzed out context to understand the whole work/ judge the whole person -Desire for moral choices to be easy/ black-and-white leads to belief that it is possible to find a one-size-fits all answer to every situation -Literal, rather than literary analysis, with weird fixation on etymological roots that have nothing to do with source material -Belief that there is “one true interpretation” that is self-evident and will be understood by everyone encountering the same material regardless of background -Overwhelming, internalized sense of culpability for other people’s actions/integrity/souls -Overwhelming, internalized sense of personal guilt -Pressure to evangelize aggressively -Tendency to value broad ideals before individual needs -Hostility towards coexistence/tolerance/neutrality -Hostility towards lack of consensus in viewpoint -Knowledge as contamination -Guilt/contamination by proximity -Fixation on the sexual as uniquely dirty/sinful -Belief in “thought crimes” -Argumentation via appeal to higher authority/feelings of revulsion rather than internal, verbalizeable logic -“conversations” that are actually stealth soapboxes because one side isn’t actually interested in listening -“polite requests” that are actually commands because “no” is not considered an acceptable answer -in-group language -virtue-signaling and hostility towards the outgroup -gatekeeping -communities strongly built around the idea of being the world’s underdog -appropriation of other people’s persecution/victimization -treating the concept of oppression like a trophy -glorification/fetishization of victimhood

It got better.

Bringing this back.

I know they’re trying to be inclusive but like, we don’t care about having pastel spaces?

I don’t even give a shit about having “sex-free” spaces?

The thing that harms me is the assumption that “everyone is a sexual being” or “sex is a necessary part of life” and the idea that if you aren’t a sexual being and sex isn’t necessary for you, there’s something wrong with you that needs to be fixed.

The thing that harms me is the form of sex positivity that assumes that you should be having a lot of sex to be happy, and if you’re not into that you’re repressed or puritanical or whatever.

I don’t care about sex-free spaces, I care about not being pathologized.

And y’all seem desperate to assume it’s ace people demanding desexualization of spaces when it’s usually fucked-up allosexuals who aren’t comfortable with their own desires.

Like you want to talk about another way y’all are like Christians and ex-Christians (speaking as a Jew), it’s the weird insistence that people who aren’t part of your system MUST somehow be oppressing you, whether it’s ex-Christians insisting that the continued existence of Judaism harms them because they have trauma around the Jewish writings that Christianity appropriated and perverted, or allosexuals insisting that ace people are demanding to take their Sexy Spaces away.

FFS.

We’re just here living our lives and asking you to stop insisting we’re broken if we’re not like you.

baffling how much of this site is just conservative protestantism with a gay hat

you know what i’m in just enough of a bad mood that i’m ready to nail my grievances to the church door so let’s fucking go

Thank you for breaking it down like that because so many of us have been saying it but to see a play by play breakdown comparison is just…Thank you.

oh, man, speaking as a queer Christian who gets regular tumblr flashbacks to my childhood in the Bible Belt, YES

-belief that small snippets of text can be analyzed out context to understand the whole work/ judge the whole person -Desire for moral choices to be easy/ black-and-white leads to belief that it is possible to find a one-size-fits all answer to every situation -Literal, rather than literary analysis, with weird fixation on etymological roots that have nothing to do with source material -Belief that there is “one true interpretation” that is self-evident and will be understood by everyone encountering the same material regardless of background -Overwhelming, internalized sense of culpability for other people’s actions/integrity/souls -Overwhelming, internalized sense of personal guilt -Pressure to evangelize aggressively -Tendency to value broad ideals before individual needs -Hostility towards coexistence/tolerance/neutrality -Hostility towards lack of consensus in viewpoint -Knowledge as contamination -Guilt/contamination by proximity -Fixation on the sexual as uniquely dirty/sinful -Belief in “thought crimes” -Argumentation via appeal to higher authority/feelings of revulsion rather than internal, verbalizeable logic -“conversations” that are actually stealth soapboxes because one side isn’t actually interested in listening -“polite requests” that are actually commands because “no” is not considered an acceptable answer -in-group language -virtue-signaling and hostility towards the outgroup -gatekeeping -communities strongly built around the idea of being the world’s underdog -appropriation of other people’s persecution/victimization -treating the concept of oppression like a trophy -glorification/fetishization of victimhood

It got better.

Bringing this back.

I know they’re trying to be inclusive but like, we don’t care about having pastel spaces?

I don’t even give a shit about having “sex-free” spaces?

The thing that harms me is the assumption that “everyone is a sexual being” or “sex is a necessary part of life” and the idea that if you aren’t a sexual being and sex isn’t necessary for you, there’s something wrong with you that needs to be fixed.

The thing that harms me is the form of sex positivity that assumes that you should be having a lot of sex to be happy, and if you’re not into that you’re repressed or puritanical or whatever.

I don’t care about sex-free spaces, I care about not being pathologized.

And y’all seem desperate to assume it’s ace people demanding desexualization of spaces when it’s usually fucked-up allosexuals who aren’t comfortable with their own desires.

I don't see people talking about this so today is the 110th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, in where the factory owners locked working women and girls inside to "eliminate the risk of theft" (in reality it was too keep them from taking breaks), which resulted in the gruesome deaths of 123 mostly immigrant women and girls and 23 men, many of whom jumped to their deaths from the ninth floor either in a panicked attempt to escape or in order to die quickly. There were reports that some of the workers were on fire already as they jumped.

The eighth floor of the building was able to telephone the tenth floor to warn them about the fire, but the factory on the ninth floor where these women and girls labored had no such communication and such warning.

The factory owners were criminally charged with manslaughter for actions that contributed to the mass deaths but acquitted. However, this tragedy led to mass sympathy to the labor movement, and unions spurred on safety regulations that passed in New York state and eventually the entire country, and activists were able to reduce child labor in the process.

This tragedy is a reminder that has been forgotten in the 110 years since: every safety regulation-- every scrap of paperwork contributing to the hundreds of pages of red tape people like to complain about--every word of it was written in the blood of a laborer.

111th anniversary

They were discouraged from breaks because they were actively trying to unionize, and bosses felt that keeping them from unsupervised contact would prevent them from joining the garment workers' union.

This is why unions are important. This is why today, right now, the biggest companies in America are trying to squash unionization of their laborers and why those workers are fighting so hard to unionize.

@tikkunolamorgtfo did a great write-up a few years ago about the aftermath of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, and I highly recommend reading it (and anything else you can about the fire). It is painfully relevant still and it's incredibly important women's, Jewish, immigrants', and workers' history.

#most of the girls working there were either jewish immmigrants or southern italian immigrants #two of the more exploited immigrant groups at the turn of the century particularly in nyc but elsewhere too #the labor history element of it can't be overemphasized tbh (x)

"Why does Group A deserve human rights if Group B doesn't have them?"

Both groups deserve human rights. That's how human rights work.

Anyone who convinces you to barter one group's rights against another is not interested in giving them to either group.

— Harold Kushner, To Life!: A Celebration of Jewish Being and Thinking

To be honest, this interpretation still reminds me of Christian arguments for free will, or at least there are similar possible issues. For what it’s worth, modern Christians actually make the same point about sin, and you can sense that it’s meant as a nicer alternative to the usual Christian rhetoric about sin.

*sigh*

“This thing in Judaism reminds me of something Christians say!”

Yeah. Because they literally stole the 25% of their belief system that isn’t completely about salvation vs damnation from us.

It’s more like Christianity is a varient of Jewdism, like its Jewdism, and also some other stuff. Of course Jewdism has evolved since Christianity became a thing so there’s lots of stuff unique to Jewdism now which Christianity never had/never grew out from. It’s the same with Islam and Christianity and Jewdism and what ever it evolved from.

No.

(Also, getting the dogwhistle ick from “Jewdism.”)

— Harold Kushner, To Life!: A Celebration of Jewish Being and Thinking

To be honest, this interpretation still reminds me of Christian arguments for free will, or at least there are similar possible issues. For what it’s worth, modern Christians actually make the same point about sin, and you can sense that it’s meant as a nicer alternative to the usual Christian rhetoric about sin.

*sigh*

“This thing in Judaism reminds me of something Christians say!”

Yeah. Because they literally stole the 25% of their belief system that isn’t completely about salvation vs damnation from us.

Literally sobbing. A judge, a US judge defended us. A judge brought up intersex people, uaing the term intersex, to *defend* us by not allowing our erasure. I'm having a lot of feelings right now

It’s a moral victory, but the depressing thing is it won’t stop anything.

One thing that has made me a much more well-adjusted person is a clip I once saw of Hank Green saying that anyone can be in amazing shape as long as being in amazing shape is one of their top three priorities.

(This is obviously a generalization that isn't true for everyone. But it is true for most people and I'm proceeding from there.)

This "top three priorities" framing has genuinely reduced my tendency toward jealousy and self-comparison a lot. Now when I feel envious of someone’s spotless, aesthetic home, I think to myself, “Having a spotless, aesthetic home is probably one of their top three priorities. It’s definitely not one of mine, so I shouldn’t expect my home to look like that.”

Or when I see an influencer with a body that takes a ton of work to maintain: “Maintaining that body is obviously one of her top three priorities, because it’s her livelihood. My livelihood is my brain, so I’m never going to prioritize my body like that.”

It also helps me to identify areas that I actually DO want to prioritize more. I realized in recent years that my envy for my friends who prioritized writing more than I did was NOT going away, so I started to prioritize writing more. (Not top three, but higher priority than it has been in the past.)

Jesus fucking Christ, no, not everyone can be in “amazing shape” even if it’s their TOP priority.

I am begging people to stop listening to white, straight, able-bodied cis men when they make pronouncements on what “anyone” can do.

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"

Jesus taught that divorce was only allowed because people demanded it. It wasn't the way things were supposed to be, but God was like, 'ookay. we'll set up a system since your stubborn asses are gonna do it anyway.' He didn't want Israel to have a monarchy either, but let them do it. Whether divorce is allowed or not, it is the result of a host of other sins. It is not the ideal.

Sex within marriage is encouraged in the NT. If the Puritans were against that, that's their weird thing.

Faith is the essential thing in both testaments, but I don't think I've ever seen it written in either that you're faithless if you question things. Kind of impossible not to.

“Faith is the essential thing in both testaments”

Truly spoken like someone who has never actually read the Tanakh.

They very much did "just take the torah and build a new religion around it." Christianity's ideological lineage lies far more with the Greek Neoplatonists than it ever has with anything Jewish.

They very much did just take a poorly translated copy of a portion of the Jewish holy texts, and reinterpret the whole thing through their own (Greek) lens, without regard to how any of those stories were viewed or understood by their native culture.

A lot of it also came from cross (heh) contamination from other Roman mystery cults during the centuries that Christianity spent as another cult hiding in the background of Roman culture, poaching new initiates from the other cults.

Consider it this way. For over 200 years, Christianity was an underground Roman cult, existing alongside other mystery cults in the larger Roman society. There's little to no contact with the Jewish population (who are slaves of Rome, have their own language and culture, and are busy trying to survive and maintain their identity), but lots and lots of contact with the other Roman cults, especially as there was generally no exclusivity expectation among the Roman cults--someone could be an initiate of Mithras, and an initiate of Dionysius, and a follower of Isis, and give offerings to Jupiter without there being any contradiction of belief.

So some of those initiates from the other cults start joining this new underground cult of Christ, and bring some of their practices and beliefs with them, syncretizing them.

Ritualistically consuming the blood and flesh of the god figure? That's something that's in direct contravention of multiple aspects of Jewish theology and law... but something that was done in the cult of Dionysius with grapes and wine, and we think also done in the cult of Mithras.

The god-figure being betrayed, tortured, died, and reborn, promising his followers a peaceful and fulfilling afterlife? Not a thing in Judaism... but take a look at the cult of Osiris.

The good god-figure is in conflict with a dark fallen god of cruelty? Very much not a thing in Judaism... but the cult of Mithras was a Roman interpretation of Zoroastrianism, and that's the central structure of their entire belief system.

The god-figure was born in a mortal form by a virgin birth? Very, very much not a Jewish concept... but look at the cult of Zeus/Jupiter and how a good portion of his offspring were born (Perseus in particular).

And that's just scratching the surface.

There was at least two hundred years of Roman-influenced cultural drift between the break with Judaism (begun somewhere around 60 CE and finalized for certain by 140 CE) and the first Nicean Council of 315 CE where a lot of the various practices and texts of early Christianity were formally codified.

I'm not Jewish, but.

Another thing that I think people miss is that Christianity split from a form of Judaism that existed 2000 years ago, not from the Judaism that exists today. Sure, the two are similar, but they're not identical.

You know we're still here, right? You can ask us what the differences are between the Second Temple Judaism of that time period and modern Rabbinic Judaism.

I mean, clearly early Christianity was not in bed with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, but how much would they have fit in with the Zealots or the Essenes?

Christianity was in “bed” with a Pharisee: Jesus.

Which is why the gospels go to so much trouble to demonize the Pharisees. They had to prove Jesus was Not Like The Other Girls.

Interesting. My question is: what is your basis for this? Also, on doing a bit of a re-read, there were a number of Pharisees that apparently agreed with Jesus, perhaps the whole 'Pharisees bad' thing was even more translation choices by later antisemites?

This is a fairly well-trodden theory (although obviously controversial among Christians) in studies of early Christianity (see, for example, the Vatican conference on Jesus and the Pharisees).

The question is less “Would Jesus (if he existed as portrayed in the NT) have considered himself a Pharisee?” (impossible to know) than “Would your average first-century Jew have considered him a Pharisee?”

As for that, here’s what we know about the Pharisees:

- Were attempting to create flexible, livable interpretations of Jewish law to adapt to the changing circumstances of the Jewish people

- Were decentering Jewish practice from the Temple into the home or community centers (synagogues)

- Usually had circles of students

- Didn’t have an infrastructure for getting paid for teaching, so they generally either had a second profession or were supported by patrons, which often involved traveling

- Taught and learned through debate—agreeing with other Pharisees on most issues wasn’t necessary to be one, and they disagreed with each other on all kinds of stuff while still having a fairly unified general ethos on the need to adapt

- Taught through stories

- Weren’t Roman collaborators (Sadducees) or calling for immediate revolution (Zealots) but were anti-Roman

- Weren’t isolationist like the Essenes/Therapeutae—remained closely involved with their communities

- Engaged with gentile “God-fearers” who believed in the God of Israel and some of the tenets of Judaism without converting to Judaism

Sound familiar?

The NT frames exchanges that would be well within the norms for Pharisaic debate as inexplicably hostile. Jesus disagreed with them on divorce, therefore they plotted to kill him!!!

Weird, because they disagreed with each other on L I T E R A L L Y E V E R Y T H I N G and weren’t trying to kill each other over it.

The Pharisees approaching Jesus to debate with him, if you look at the substance of their encounters and ignore the narrative insisting that they had Nefarious Intentions!!!!, is how they engaged with each other. They didn’t spend their time debating Sadducees. Debate was an intracommunity activity, not something they wasted effort on doing with their enemies.

Jesus has dinner with Shimon the Pharisee, which was fairly normal practice for traveling rabbis who guest-preached at a synagogue. They’d stay with a prominent community member while they were in town.

The Pharisees also warn Jesus that Herod is looking for him (also a normal thing to do for someone you see as a member of your community, even if you disagree with him on some things).

Early Christianity was at pains to prove it wasn’t just another Jewish movement, which meant attacking the Jewish movement it arose out of and was closest to.

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"

Jesus taught that divorce was only allowed because people demanded it. It wasn't the way things were supposed to be, but God was like, 'ookay. we'll set up a system since your stubborn asses are gonna do it anyway.' He didn't want Israel to have a monarchy either, but let them do it. Whether divorce is allowed or not, it is the result of a host of other sins. It is not the ideal.

Sex within marriage is encouraged in the NT. If the Puritans were against that, that's their weird thing.

Faith is the essential thing in both testaments, but I don't think I've ever seen it written in either that you're faithless if you question things. Kind of impossible not to.

“Faith is the essential thing in both testaments”

Truly spoken like someone who has never actually read the Tanakh.

They very much did "just take the torah and build a new religion around it." Christianity's ideological lineage lies far more with the Greek Neoplatonists than it ever has with anything Jewish.

They very much did just take a poorly translated copy of a portion of the Jewish holy texts, and reinterpret the whole thing through their own (Greek) lens, without regard to how any of those stories were viewed or understood by their native culture.

A lot of it also came from cross (heh) contamination from other Roman mystery cults during the centuries that Christianity spent as another cult hiding in the background of Roman culture, poaching new initiates from the other cults.

Consider it this way. For over 200 years, Christianity was an underground Roman cult, existing alongside other mystery cults in the larger Roman society. There's little to no contact with the Jewish population (who are slaves of Rome, have their own language and culture, and are busy trying to survive and maintain their identity), but lots and lots of contact with the other Roman cults, especially as there was generally no exclusivity expectation among the Roman cults--someone could be an initiate of Mithras, and an initiate of Dionysius, and a follower of Isis, and give offerings to Jupiter without there being any contradiction of belief.

So some of those initiates from the other cults start joining this new underground cult of Christ, and bring some of their practices and beliefs with them, syncretizing them.

Ritualistically consuming the blood and flesh of the god figure? That's something that's in direct contravention of multiple aspects of Jewish theology and law... but something that was done in the cult of Dionysius with grapes and wine, and we think also done in the cult of Mithras.

The god-figure being betrayed, tortured, died, and reborn, promising his followers a peaceful and fulfilling afterlife? Not a thing in Judaism... but take a look at the cult of Osiris.

The good god-figure is in conflict with a dark fallen god of cruelty? Very much not a thing in Judaism... but the cult of Mithras was a Roman interpretation of Zoroastrianism, and that's the central structure of their entire belief system.

The god-figure was born in a mortal form by a virgin birth? Very, very much not a Jewish concept... but look at the cult of Zeus/Jupiter and how a good portion of his offspring were born (Perseus in particular).

And that's just scratching the surface.

There was at least two hundred years of Roman-influenced cultural drift between the break with Judaism (begun somewhere around 60 CE and finalized for certain by 140 CE) and the first Nicean Council of 315 CE where a lot of the various practices and texts of early Christianity were formally codified.

I'm not Jewish, but.

Another thing that I think people miss is that Christianity split from a form of Judaism that existed 2000 years ago, not from the Judaism that exists today. Sure, the two are similar, but they're not identical.

You know we're still here, right? You can ask us what the differences are between the Second Temple Judaism of that time period and modern Rabbinic Judaism.

I mean, clearly early Christianity was not in bed with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, but how much would they have fit in with the Zealots or the Essenes?

Christianity was in “bed” with a Pharisee: Jesus.

Which is why the gospels go to so much trouble to demonize the Pharisees. They had to prove Jesus was Not Like The Other Girls.

No one ever tell me anything bad about the person who runs this account.

the person who runs this account, Katie Gouldin, is an evolutionary biologist who has an EXCELLENT podcast called Creature Feature which compares and contrasts the weird behaviors of man and beast! she is super cute and funny too!

oh thank GOD

just want to add i love how much she hates elon

yeah okay ill reblog that

She is also credited by the Audubon society with coining the word “birb”

Also source for probably the best reaction image in history: