Rhetorical question
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (86)
sorted by:
If I had to guess, it's to promote themselves to a separate special class,above everybody else.
Racism is bad, but antisemitism is super duper extra bad.
Genocide is bad, but the Holocaust was super duper extra bad.
Whatever the topic, having a separate term allows them to make the topic about them. It's narcissism.
The craziest part about the word Holocaust is that the only time it shows up in the Bible it’s to refer to a “burnt offering” of charred flesh and fat offered to YHWH in Genesis.
The Jews have a really fucked up view of God and prophecy. From what I've read, they literally believe that 6,000,000 Jews had to be burnt in a fire to return to the promised land, and apparently they believed they could force the issue.
As a Christian, I'm always skeptical of people who insist that prophecy always has to be taken 100% literally. As though God doesn't love His metaphors and parables when explaining things to us. People who think they can force His hand by playing Magic Spells: Gargoyles Edition are even shadier.
yeah, if God is perfect, then God knows perfectly how to use abstract ideas and nuance. a lot of Christianity in general depends so much on this fact, it's really a shame most either ignore it or completely twist the intended interpretation.
That's literally what makes them j*wish. In Christ, God revealed that a huge chunk of his eternal strategy was a word game to distract the Enemy. The judeans who accepted God's revealed explanation became Christians. The judeans who replied "nuh uh" are the cursed people we suffer under today.
That's interesting, I actually had to look that one up. I don't remember ever seeing the word Holocaust in the Bible, but I only ever read the King James version. But you're right, they do use it in the Catholic translations, specifically when instructing Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice. The King James version replaces that term with "burnt offering".
Iirc it is also used to refer to Abel’s offering of the firstling
'Holocaust' is the Greek term for when the whole animal is sacrificed rather than just the bones and the fat.
So then how did that term come to be used by jews for that event? Has any Jew actually offered up an explanation? If it's a word.that doesn't even exist outside a few rare contexts, then they had to have chosen it for a reason. In fact that was probably THE reason. Something no infrequently used it's basically a novel word.
'The Jews' use the term Shoah, which means catastrophe. It's historians who use holocaust. Not sure why. Possibly because the bodies were burned afterwards.
'Kosher' -> quality of being eaten by the priest class
Saying anything against the jews is "anti-semitism" but the Semites encompass an entirely different group of peoples. They do not trace lineage to Shem.
Being able to steal history, have everyone just go along with it, and then use that stolen history to create a special class of "hate" is a pretty interesting skill.
They cry out as they strike you.
It's no different than other favored castes fighting amongst themselves. Not liking sheboons isn't misogyny or racism, it's "misogynoir". Not liking male trannies isn't transphobia or misogyny, it's "transmisogyny". They're just solidifying their place on the pecking order by stacking their victim identities.
Great examples of the same thing.
We're all people, but they're CHOSEN people.
The US has allies but Israel is our GREATEST ally.
There's lots of countries in the middle east but Israel is "the only democracy in the middle east"
They simultaneously have "only one nation" and are a "nationless people" that have spread to everywhere else in the world.