That first opinion is an interesting one. It isn't implausible because Western Christianity by the time of Descartes was essentially Aristotelianized Catholicism whilst Eastern Christianity was essentially Platonized Orthodoxy. Any kind of pure Christianity was already long gone by that time.
Thus the yid looks at these syntheses of Christianity with pre-Christian Greco-Roman philosophy and starts panicking because it no longer performs the full functionality that it once performed anymore.
That is certainly one way to reconcile the problem, raised further up in this comment section, of why Christianity is no longer a state religion if it serves a function for the yids. If it serves a function for them, why don't they continue to push it as a state religion? The answer in this scenario would be: 'It served a function for the yids, but all of these accretions from the goyim have transformed it into something that no longer serves them. Thus, they pushed it at its start but want to eradicate it - that is, the versions that they view as hopelessly corrupted by accretions - now.'
Islam
Theologically, Islam makes more sense where it differs from Christianity - no God-man; no binary or trinity; and has a scripture that reads as though it contains far less contradictions and general oddities, one which should be read as correcting rather than replacing the presumably erroneous Old and New Testaments (hence some Muslims referring to the Qu'ran as the Final Testament).
Just to take the first two examples that come to mind: Firstly, in the Bible, where did Aaron die? At the top of a mountain (Numbers) or in a village (Deuteronomy)?
Secondly, if Moses wrote Deuteronomy, as is traditionally believed, who wrote in it that Moses died at the age of 120? Unless he foresaw his own death, he obviously didn't write that. And who wrote earlier in Deuteronomy that, since the time of Moses, 'no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses'? Unless Moses could see the future, this is either a piece of self-aggrandizement or somebody else wrote it, ergo, again, the claim that Moses wrote Deuteronomy suffers from two problems.
Islam also lacks those arguably subversive statements that anti-Christian White nationalists like to copy and paste whenever they argue with Christian White nationalists. Just yesterday I saw someone post:
[Matthew 5:44] But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
It is easy to see why master moralists see words like 'love your enemies' and 'pray for those who persecute you' as subversive content. Indeed, if such words truly do not reflect the way that God has intended man to live, then all of the allure behind these words immediately dissipates: they are simply wicked, self-destructive, pathological lies, part of the most successful subversion of all time, appealing most of all to the most cowardly, most weak degenerates by passing off their cowardly weakness as the true Will of God.
The conclusion I have held these past few years since beginning to verse myself on religion is that, whether or not Adam Green and friends are right about Christianity, Islam lacks the same roots; that is, it serves no real function to the yids, despite the odd rabbi here and there casting upon it the same aspersions they do Christianity. Intriguingly, Islam has no counterpart to the Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity that is egregiously suspicious when viewed from a functionalist perspective: the yids are, very obviously, the greatest beneficiaries of this religion spreading rapidly across Africa and Latin America, since it transforms anyone who wants Jesus to return into a defender of the State of Israel.
Personally, I don't think these internet rabbis that Adam Green and friends like to post know much about the subject matter - they simply act as though they do because that's their profession - we need more proof that Christianity and Islam are simply yiddish 'psychological operations' than some smug rabbi saying the quiet part out loud because he believes that his audience is comprised only of yids who will be in awe of his supposed 'knowledge'.
One might say, for instance, that if Christianity was already successfully fulfilling a subversive function for the yids, what even would be the point in coming up with additional false religions? They would be effectively redundant. An obvious response might be that they need the goyim divided into multiple false opposition belief systems so that they will fight each other, but history shows that Christians have fought Christians and Muslims have fought Muslims much more than Christians have fought Muslims, ergo, only one system is actually needed to keep the goyim fighting amongst themselves.
Indeed, why not dismiss the obscure Sabianism/Mandaeism as another yiddish 'psychological operation' predating Islam, especially when, in line with Judaism, it declares Jesus a false prophet? Wouldn't that make more sense for yids to promote than Islam? If the yids have the power to propagate such false religions, why not push Sabianism on the goyim? Indeed, wouldn't that make more sense to promote even than Christianity, so that the goyim are all hating Jesus as a false prophet like they do, unlike the Christians and Muslims that revere him to this day?
That first opinion is an interesting one. It isn't implausible because Western Christianity by the time of Descartes was essentially Aristotelianized Catholicism whilst Eastern Christianity was essentially Platonized Orthodoxy. Any kind of pure Christianity was already long gone by that time.
Thus the yid looks at these syntheses of Christianity with pre-Christian Greco-Roman philosophy and starts panicking because it no longer performs the full functionality that it once performed anymore.
That is certainly one way to reconcile the problem, raised further up in this comment section, of why Christianity is no longer a state religion if it serves a function for the yids. If it serves a function for them, why don't they continue to push it as a state religion? The answer in this scenario would be: 'It served a function for the yids, but all of these accretions from the goyim have transformed it into something that no longer serves them. Thus, they pushed it at its start but want to eradicate it - that is, the versions that they view as hopelessly corrupted by accretions - now.'
Theologically, Islam makes more sense where it differs from Christianity - no God-man; no binary or trinity; and has a scripture that reads as though it contains far less contradictions and general oddities, one which should be read as correcting rather than replacing the presumably erroneous Old and New Testaments (hence some Muslims referring to the Qu'ran as the Final Testament).
Just to take the first two examples that come to mind: Firstly, in the Bible, where did Aaron die? At the top of a mountain (Numbers) or in a village (Deuteronomy)?
Secondly, if Moses wrote Deuteronomy, as is traditionally believed, who wrote in it that Moses died at the age of 120? Unless he foresaw his own death, he obviously didn't write that. And who wrote earlier in Deuteronomy that, since the time of Moses, 'no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses'? Unless Moses could see the future, this is either a piece of self-aggrandizement or somebody else wrote it, ergo, again, the claim that Moses wrote Deuteronomy suffers from two problems.
Islam also lacks those arguably subversive statements that anti-Christian White nationalists like to copy and paste whenever they argue with Christian White nationalists. Just yesterday I saw someone post:
[Matthew 5:44] But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
It is easy to see why master moralists see words like 'love your enemies' and 'pray for those who persecute you' as subversive content. Indeed, if such words truly do not reflect the way that God has intended man to live, then all of the allure behind these words immediately dissipates: they are simply wicked, self-destructive, pathological lies, part of the most successful subversion of all time, appealing most of all to the most cowardly, most weak degenerates by passing off their cowardly weakness as the true Will of God.
The conclusion I have held these past few years since beginning to verse myself on religion is that, whether or not Adam Green and friends are right about Christianity, Islam lacks the same roots; that is, it serves no real function to the yids, despite the odd rabbi here and there casting upon it the same aspersions they do Christianity. Intriguingly, Islam has no counterpart to the Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity that is egregiously suspicious when viewed from a functionalist perspective: the yids are, very obviously, the greatest beneficiaries of this religion spreading rapidly across Africa and Latin America, since it transforms anyone who wants Jesus to return into a defender of the State of Israel.
Personally, I don't think these internet rabbis that Adam Green and friends like to post know much about the subject matter - they simply act as though they do because that's their profession - we need more proof that Christianity and Islam are simply yiddish 'psychological operations' than some smug rabbi saying the quiet part out loud because he believes that his audience is comprised only of yids who will be in awe of his supposed 'knowledge'.
One might say, for instance, that if Christianity was already successfully fulfilling a subversive function for the yids, what even would be the point in coming up with additional false religions? They would be effectively redundant. An obvious response might be that they need the goyim divided into multiple false opposition belief systems so that they will fight each other, but history shows that Christians have fought Christians and Muslims have fought Muslims much more than Christians have fought Muslims, ergo, only one system is actually needed to keep the goyim fighting amongst themselves.
Indeed, why not dismiss the obscure Sabianism/Mandaeism as another yiddish 'psychological operation' predating Islam, especially when, in line with Judaism, it declares Jesus a false prophet? Wouldn't that make more sense for yids to promote than Islam? If the yids have the power to propagate such false religions, why not push Sabianism on the goyim? Indeed, wouldn't that make more sense to promote even than Christianity, so that the goyim are all hating Jesus as a false prophet like they do, unlike the Christians and Muslims that revere him to this day?