Umm, Acts 15 (:29) is the source .... "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." James, Paul, Peter, etc. For doubters it's repeated in identical words in Acts 21:25.
The Noahide laws mean laws that can be inferred from Gen. 1-11 as belonging to Noah and thus to all humanity. All humanity gets to decide what they are. However, the Tosefta, Avodah Zarah 9:4, a second-century work (following the rabbis Jesus interacted with and predating the Talmud), gives the first formal listing: "The sons of Noach were given seven commandments: courts, idolatry, blasphemy, forbidden sexual relations, bloodshed, theft, and consuming the limb of a living animal." The last is the same as strangulation, namely preventing animal abuse. Almost all cultures almost always agree on these basics (C.S. Lewis, Abolition of Man appendix).
Add: I forgot there was an earlier (100s BC) listing in Jubilees 7:24, during the pre-Christ covenantal period prior to rabbinical Judaism, that is analytically comparable but contains further nuances: "To observe righteousness, and to cover the shame of their flesh, and to bless their Creator, and honour father and mother, and love their neighbour, and guard their souls from fornication and uncleanness and all iniquity."
The fact that Jews take it seriously to join with humanity in deciding, as a community of equal children of Noah, on the simplest moral law for all, something very similar to the Ten Commandments, is their prerogative as much as that of any other children of Noah. There is no difference between that and any other culture recognizing the difference between the natural law and the local national law.
There is of course a separate current in Judaism about the idea that people who don't accept the Messiah will not get to participate in the Kingdom and will be cast out as a lower, noncitizen class, and as stated it's essentially identical in Christianity and in Islam too.
Remember, rabbis are cagey, and they never put themselves on the hook for the things that people claim they say. When you look into what they believe you find things that are not much different from the triumphalism in other religions.
Funny, the catholic Church emphasized the bindingness of Noahide laws in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem Council.
Maybe the problem is not the laws but who's enforcing them? Maybe Noahides (specifically Gentiles) should get the jump on establishing Noahide courts?
Maybe not killing and not raping are pretty good laws? Seems like not eating the limb of a living animal is a pretty unambiguous law too.
That's what I like in the other forums - if you're useless, or non-productive, people call you out on this.
OP is useless and non-productive.
If OP desired progress it would have defined how progress is achieved other than people already agreeing with OP or coming around to agree with OP. Hint: the alternative is by OP coming around to yield an inch or two.
So, after an OP which is ostensibly about how c/Conspiracies has "only progressed, if the comments are for this topic", you derail your own topic; and after several people accuse you of going after individuals randomly, you go after me randomly? The self-awareness is off the charts.
Jesus and I have been changing the world since it was founded (though I joined the game in the 80s). For one example, as described at SwampRangers.com and the Swamp Fox, Scott Lively, we appointed Swamp Rangers around the country to drain the swamp of impolitic creatures, since 2021-01-01. Official Swamp Ranger #1 has done a bang-up job, his name is D. John Trump.
Am I just dropping names or does my snark indicate I really do have an apprenticeship to omnipotence? Over the wires you can't tell!
That's all to say I asked you what "progress" is and you made no progress toward answering. The nonironic was, as I prophesied, lost on you, so now I'm laying it on extra thick. I couldn't remember why I thought we had something going on before, so I looked it up. Yeah, you posted Ted Pike and Steven Anderson to c/Christianity 2 months ago, I gave reasonable criticism for and against their positions, and then you bailed on us suddenly and started c/TrueChristianity all by yourself, made about 240 posts and got 5 comments total engagement, three of which you deleted. No wonder I could never tell what you were on about.
So let's say one way I change the world is keeping Christians safe from you?
TLDR: You imply you want some power to "expand a topic with someone" who is not already "for this topic". That is, you want the superpower of changing a person's mind against his will. Since God is the source of this power (and I've been using it on people judiciously ever since he used it on me to convince me of himself against my fallen will), I suggest you take it up with him directly if you don't want to go through the likes of me as mediator. Because you sure ain't figuring out how to "expand" on your own! Snark for the snark.
Most of Jesus's parables have one or more punchlines. Their humor is lost on us partly due to context and partly due to repetition. The parable of the virgins is a standard blond joke. See also Ps. 2:4.
Well, there's the dampening factor that all the conspiracy theories are coming true at unheard-of pace.
I often invert OP's like this by going meta and showing absurdity by being absurd. But I suspect that if I just criticized your post for spelling errors and personal attack and no forward momentum the irony would be lost on many.
What's "progress" here? Because I've been busy changing the world for a long time, plus four years here, and defining progress the way Jesus does I see plenty of it.
To me, making people grapple with your data and leaving them with it is an excellent return on investment. If a person changes his mind over time, even better, but it's not my responsibility or power to change minds. People agreeing and building a case is also a good return, but adversity makes a case shine even better.
So I'm unclear on how the OP makes "progress". Thanks.
Drilling through, the oneirophrenic hallucinogens were harmel (Aramaic sabbara or besas) and blue water lily. There was also blood in the mixture, so I guess we can now say the Egyptian Bes worshippers were the first ones provably drinking blood, right?
Well, fren, I prophesied right: I got banned from c/parasite about 5 hours ago. Trusting it wasn't you but one of your friends.
The only rule I can see that I might have been perceived as breaking is if one of the mods looked through the wires and decided my skin wasn't white enough. If a skin reveal would help, let me know. Otherwise, I appeal to the rule of law.
I'd prefer, since you received me genially at first, if you'd let me know whether you wish to run a rapid-nuke site like plenty of others here or if you wish to actually engage in parasite research in a healthy colloquy and exchange. I can certainly handle the opposition as well as any special rules you wish me to submit to. It's not on me what choice you make, it's on you.
Doggos shows that one of our vendors set an arbitrary cache limit of 1802 (communities) that we blew past mysteriously.
I am looking out, but you are right I spoke too soon. It would seem to be something differing in style or filter rules but it's mysterious what. Maybe it should go up to c/Meta.
u/B1-66ER, I apologize, I can't figure it out either. The login glitch you describe is mostly normal, it's associated with cookies not being exactly what the system wants, while the 503 error was reported on as only happening twice in site history. But persistent selective display of posts? That's new to me!
Found it, it's handshakes. They are not filtered out by conspiracies.win site rules but they are filtered out on scored.co. Interesting that two different rulesets are in play! Makes me wonder what else I've been missing ....
Christ is King.
Welcome to the real fight, brother.
Christ will do the work. All we have to do is pray.
Yes, plus he works through us, in spite of ourselves. Easy yoke.
Yeah, I like to say we found satan's mom, he's the Son of Dawn.
It's true that both lucifer (helel) and satan are titles so we don't get a real name, and both titles are highly overplayed in the churchianity wing of the real Jesus followers.
I can see your taking Anu-Enki-Enlil-Marduk and templating El-Shahar-Shalim-Helel over that (though Helel is the 8th-century title and the others are all very old Sumerian or Canaanite; Shahar as deity is rare enough we oddly have no older indications of any sons). But knowing the Isaiah tradition from his other poetry (some of the greatest of the millennium), he would be trying to rehabilitate "shahar" more than to build on an Enki-Marduk connection, even if that parallel is secondary in his mind. By the Isaiah II-III period (58:8), we have shachar as a positive feature of the messianic Day of Yahweh. I also found the Davidic "rehem mishchar", womb of the dawning (from shachar), in the messianic Ps. 110:3, which is definitely in Isaiah's mind; so the helel becomes a messianic claimant, an aspirant to the priest-king archetypal destiny.
Also by this time "son" is more metaphorical than regarded as genealogical among deities, i.e., helel is singularly representative of Venus-Dawn (Aphrodite, Astarte, Inanna). Seeing that Astarte was also later merged with Eos-Dawn, I'd venture to say that despite Shahar's masculine grammar (M) the word connects with more feminine contexts (F). So if Isaiah is familiar with Shahar weShalim, which is tenable, he could be invoking a connection between Astarte and helel that is representative rather than generative, and this would then be intended also to inform the character found in Job, the satan who is son of El (I don't generally say grandson as that concept is rarer than son's son).
So the thesis that El-Shahar(M)-Shalim is to be connected to Shahar-Helel to make a parallel history to Anu's family is not unmerited, but weaker than alternatives (which of course often coexist without being regarded as contradiction). I would certainly say the half-brother narrative as a recurring archetype is as significant as you note, and it makes one inquire of its original. But, at the same time, if I said El-Astarte?-Satan is also parallel to Elyon-Shahar(F)-Helel, that wouldn't be rejectable out of hand either.
Now the question then goes to what is the historian's intended narrative of all this. Either we're talking about history of some real family of humans or other sentients, or we're talking about categorization of deified concepts, with some overlap between the two. In the conceptual category it's not too troubling because concepts like Calf or Dawn are free to float around with multiple relationships. In the genealogical category we ultimately come to either dynasties or "watchers" and we have the harder problem that history is not allowed to contradict itself. In the overlap category I think we should consider deity names as we regard corporation names nowadays, namely they merge and split and take on or abandon meanings: so Marduk, if he is some spiritual entity, started out local but then may have taken on (some) connections that gave him rights in more names or titles, like satan. However, to me this doesn't rise to the level of plot hole in the Hebrew transmission, as I have such high standards for what would be irremediable holes that I can retcon most anything, and the ability to retcon later is often part of the intentional ambiguity of the originals.
I agree that people should talk about these things! I've noted that among Christians it's relegated to seminarians who then perceive that the Enlightenment covered it so exhaustively that there's nothing new to say or to "bore" the flock with. But unless we have robust understanding of the breadth of the sources (especially those taken as gospel), we fall prey to dropping one gospel for another hastily without validating either.
Add: Plus among my research tabs we have the pre-Davidic song "Aijeleth Shahar" (Ps. 22:1 KJV), dawn hind, which is the sun that reveals its horns (rays, wings) at dawn. This is certainly something Isaiah had seen preserved in Hezekiah's archives, which gives the relationship of Shamash-Utu intimate with Shahar, while Marduk's name comes from Utu. That might get us to Anu-Enki-Ninmah-Enlil-Marduk and templating El-Utu-Shahar(F)-Shalim-Helel over that (where Shahar is taken as the fertility goddess Ninmah wife of Enki). But it's all relative!
Hmm, it becomes quite a web, and I totally affirm the amassing of piles and the distinction of solid evidence from stretchers.
Namr-Ud goes back to the old Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a bit suspect. I'll buy that Marduk comes from Sumerian Amar-Utu-Ak (with Utu being the Anuna), but then the other JE reading "ideographically" would have to be An-Amar-Utu, where the dingir is read as "An" meaning "sky".
Though Babylon was very minor in that day, we might speculate that Moses might have known of a then-local tradition of An-Amar-Utu via the Babylonian Chronicles about King Amar-Sin, which would have been available to Abram in Ur, so the transmission is not impossible, though ranked dubious.
The difficulties become (1) Moses regards Nimrod as a Cushite king, nor an obscure Ur deity; (2) It's a bit more likely Amar-Sin was not related to Marduk from the then-obscure Babylon, but to the Amorite namesake-deity Martu from Lagash (though I wouldn't be surprised if these were spiritual clones); (3) Hall is not a reliable source and though amaru is extant you'd think there'd be a better source for ka meaning soil in Incan or Mayan; (4) you'd need a transmission chain from Amar-Utu to amaru, which is highly unlikely.
So you're right it's intriguing, but there are so many intrigues in pseudoetymology that I brush some off or bookmark them to see if they ever accumulate better evidence. My take is that, first, although making Marduk/Merodach into Nimrod is not impossible, it's likelier that Marduk started out a relative nobody and Nimrod started out hot and heavy (here I propose his identity with Naram-Sin grandson of Sargon). Second, the theory of amaru-ka is somewhat competitive, but I don't have that linked to the east yet; the feathered serpent is a very different chain of transmission from the calf. Mental note: look for eastern serpents named similar to amaru.
Third, your most potent connection is that the original Marduk would have been an Anuna (using your term) and was probably one among several inspirations for the modern satan. The other connections may be better explained by convergent etymology than divergent. Summarizing for my own reference, amaru (Inca serpent), Martu or Amarru (Lagash representation of Amorites), and Amar-Utu (Babylon local calf deity) have tempting appearances of connection but not clear paths of identity. (The fact that Amar-Sin connects to both Martu and Amar-Utu does not converge them; the fact that Naram-Sin connects to Amar-Sin does not converge Nimrod and Marduk. Also today I discovered Nin-Urta (older Nippur barley deity, possibly later Nisroch), who is similarly not likely to be Nimrod despite the consonants.) If, however, "satan" is to be defined as the worst of the Anuna, I'm not sure offhand that'd be Marduk, who is dependent on Utu/Shamash.
America turns out to be named after Satan.
Snooping on you, I found this one interesting. Do you have the goods on (my guess) MLK or something, because I haven't found a core etymology as solid as yours sounds?
A quick hunt shows you mean Milkoth haShamaim as a translated title? Very good, no, I wasn't thinking of that connection specifically though I had it on my radar. It's more direct for me to say Dumuzid is Tammuz.
My question is though what is the most significant good info on the subject in your opinion? What do you think is being hidden from us? If we tracked the career of Naram-Sin King of the Universe, for instance, who enlarged empire and tried to make himself one of these beings (an Anuna), we might get a little instruction, but for us to get to today's problems takes a bit more recent study too IMHO. So those who are missing out on the ancient history aren't missing that much by comparison.
Thanks for the detail. I've been skeptical of Sitchin for other reasons so you can understand that Heiser would resonate better with me. What he seemed to be doing in that clip was to demonstrate that without exacting quotation of the ancient sources, which he was indeed expert on, one weakens one's own case. I don't immediately have a proof or disproof that Anunnaki is a spelling initiated by Sitchin.
Despite his flaws, I haven't ruled out all of von Daniken yet, because it looks like the Igigi, related to the Anuna, may have been sighted in the New World. I'm also pursuing the track of Inanna with relish, and she seems counted among them. But the biggie is the legend behind Genesis 6 and 1 Enoch, a little bit in Jubilees, moderated by the king lists and the other most ancient legends. If you think those texts may "divert" people from Anunnaki study, well, that's where I've been diverted. What would be interesting today in their study, other than as a history not to repeat?
So I'll take your Heiser note under advisement, but when I've followed through he's always been reliable.
I see you mean the arched, capped box in the back, behind the boat with its two stands. Readers will want to know this review starts at 28:00 in RJ's link and there are good angles on it for 30:00-32:00. Otherwise the link is primarily about Abusir pyramids (5th dynasty), while Edfu temple is Ptolemaic dynasty, after the 31st. The OP attempts to make this Edfu box contemporaneous with a similar structure at Abusir. I'll grant the evidence that its construction solidity makes it appear much older, but not necessarily prediluvian.
Abusir is quite interesting for its own sake, in that the 5th dynasty had nowhere near the technology of the 4th, and had abandoned Giza. This is consistent with a dynasty break as would be necessary in the event of the deluge. So it's possible these are just postdiluvian Old Kingdom work, while the Great Pyramids and Sphinx would be prediluvian, along with Menes.
5th dynasty would be overlapping with Sumer and Akkad, and with the rapid Hamitic growth and language dispersion testified by the Table of Nations. I'm still going to read the Edfu inscriptions linked by your video, but I don't expect surprises.
u/freedomlogic, u/Primate98, the cylinder seals are also very interesting as separate testimonies. At c/Christianity we discussed Heiser's expert ruling on some of these seals, as the iconography can be studied very exactly. The period of the seals is similar to Abusir (not Edfu), but the traditions are often from quite different strands.
Thank you for saying so! Yeah, u/Thisisnotanexit is both sensitive and thick-skinned in different ways. I trust she'll let me rib her with a little spelling flame: if she were Jewish she would have spelled it Tanakh.
No, what we are is Christians who want whatever Jesus is and has for us. He loves the OT (Tanakh), so we do also. In fact we believe our salvation consists entirely in, not what we did, but solely what Jesus did to keep perfectly every single Abraham-Isaac-Jacob mad writing there is. If Jesus kept all of them perfectly, it means there must be some way in which the facially-confusing talk about genocides and mixed fabrics all makes sense; and if it makes sense to Jesus he's such a great guy (because he's the incarnation of my Creator) that I trust it will make sense to me in time too.
If you want to start with your own judgment and never move from there, I guess you could say the OT doesn't make sense to you now and so it might never. But surely you believe that ancestors weren't morons, they did and said things for a reason. My ancestors passed on to me the writings they thought most holy, as I'm sure yours did. (Check out that Havamal, very sacred in the right context.) So if you find the OT "mad" it may be that your judgment will change given more exposure and dialogue.
Ever aka always aka way of all implies forwards...each TEMPORARY one within implies backwards.
Forwarding (inception towards death) divisions (life)...
Con-dicere (speaking together) aka suggested words meeting con-sent, thereby contradicting being send apart from one another.
Con-entera-diction (speaking together between). If "contradiction" is contradiction, then, "ignoring" is better diction; e.g. sending-together "ignores" sending-apart.
That's why suggestion contradicts perception...since nature doesn't utter words by putting letters together. It's ones consent LETTING others shape LETTERS into words with attached meaning.
Nature puts codons together! E.g. Felis catus "CATCATCATCAT".
ONE (apart) + CON (together with)...there's the contradiction
Again:
Each temporary one dies within ever forwarding all.
one dies within
temporary one within ongoing all
.... Self discernment is about ones living position within process of dying.
Ones response to spirit can make turns in-between inhaling and exhaling. Filling belly/chest and lungs allows all kinds of opportunities for vibration/compression/eddying mass aka turning/bending into a vortex etc.
Enacting breath (momentum) of God (motion) into reacting spirit/spiro - "to breathe" (matter).
(Enacting) breath turns, (reacting) spirit turns. Breath of God: If God (motion), God (spirit).
The spirit you describe as "turning fro and back" implies matter; while the directed spirit implies the momentum (breath) of motion (God). Ones choice "turns" incoming spirit within the formed vessel of matter...or however else one chooses to blow it.
Choice turns spirit; perceptive. Fro and back. Choosing implies matter (forward/backward), directing implies spirit (fro/back) within.
a) Ever forwarding (inception towards death) temporal reactions backwards (life)
b) Ever forwarding divides from all into ones, motion into matter; action into reactions etc.
Temporal backwards reactions multiply through each other (intercourse for off-spring) in-between addition (inception) and subtraction (death).
Velocity implies constant change, which resistance adapting within perceives as implication (if/then)...unless ignored for suggested temptations, which establish reason (versus aka turning against one another).
Hence living (increase) within process of dying (decrease), while wielding the free will of choice to increase or decrease oneself and one another.
If so, then, "ever forwarding divides from all" (whole) "into ones, motion" (God) "into matter" (breath), "action" (momentum) "into reactions" (spirit). God/momentum implies spirit, breath/reaction implies sound. Choice re-turns spirit and sound to God.
If you present as an atheist, it would be rude of me to shove an unaccepted Bible or unaccepted God down your throat. It's more important to me to know what you do believe about e.g. why Christianity is good for people and what to do about right and wrong (plan of salvation). Then we have grounds for comparing paths. Christianity doesn't say "You must convince of God's existence by the Bible", we didn't have the whole Bible for most of the covenant people's existence. Plus, why should I repeat what others have shown you in the Bible, which hasn't worked, when something else might work as pre-evangelism (in the Bible, Jesus implies ground must be broken up sometimes before something can be planted).
In our whole conversation, you've left me in the dark about your current stance. So I ask specifically: What is your brain saying was the illusion? Who told you this first? Why do you believe that voice, and throw out everything from the voices of Christianity in your life? Why not build on (synthesize) what you leaned both then and now? How come you imply you have no responsibility for either belief, when you do believe in responsibility?
Forever and ever implies multiplying forward; while back implies a division...a contradiction. In reality...forwards (motion) and backwards (matter) are balanced (momentum). The position of being implies backwards within forwarding origin .... If "forever and ever back"; then no forwarding of temporal being.
For ever implies multiplying forward, back ever implies dividing backward, dividing balances multiplying. "Backwards (father) within forwarding (son)."
CON (together) contradicts ONE (apart from one another).
Con-tra-dicts? "Temporary one ... within" implies "temporary one con-", in:
Each temporary one dies within ever forwarding all.
Inception implies death
Inception implies dying; then, each temporary dying one, and each temporary dying within, balanced.
Spirit doesn't respond to a turn
"Shall the dust return ...: and the spirit shall return." Spirit turns fro, and turns back. Exhale and inhale, enact and react?
Implication (if/then) requires the same velocity
Then, for ever and back ever implies tempos (times) multiply forward, and multiply back (divides). Velocity changes, implication adapts.
stretching partials cannot increase or decrease whole
Stretching partials (contemporaries) increases, and can decrease, partials.
all is one in energy
Given your length, I outline so you can read selectively.
a. I don't define into existence, which would indeed be fallacy. I observe real things, compare things, and judge one to be the greatest thing, by scientific method. I then further observe this greatest thing. By that process I confirm all the core Christian truths listed in my link https://scored.co/c/Atheist/p/141reluACp/-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-one-m/c/4OUfR2Rkd1Q (thank you for asking specifically about them).
b. I quote Sagan because he used scientific method (observation) to determine meaningful definitions (nature of Cosmos). I think you haven't once engaged with these basic truths by affirming that things exist and that we can refer meaningfully to the sum of all being by a name such as Cosmos. I'm glad you recognize what it's like to be transitioning in belief, you'll need that.
You think I'm not a real Christian because I respect you enough not to overload you with detail (as in fact you asked) until you're ready. So here's the paths from basic panentheism to real, full Christianity:
-
"Jesus Christ as your savior": Most atheists agree Cosmos implies right and wrong and that they have done wrong. Reviewing all systems of righting wrongs, I've concluded Jesus's system ("salvation") is the best.
-
"heaven and hell": Recognizing the Cosmos contains consciousness, found in informatic selves (minds), I ask whether consciousness can be restored once lost by the self (resurrection). Both historical testimony and modern experience with millions of NDEs indicate so, so I've concluded everlasting destiny exists, and has at least two characters based on one's system of righting wrong.
-
"the Christian God": I proved the Cosmos was infinite (limitless); so I conclude the basic definition of Christian God by proving the Cosmos is also personal. Since I proved the Cosmos contains the sum of all consciousnesses (persons), the immediate conclusion is that it too has every characteristic of person, in which human persons subsist. The Cosmos, being limitless, also contains the unknown, so it's sufficiently transcendent to be identified with the Christian God (i.e. not impersonal panentheism but consistent with the other creeds).
-
"the bible as THE one and only authoritative source that Trumps everything else": I think so, but to prove this I would first define standards of authority, then determine which historical documents have authority for comparison, then realize the Bible has at least a high standard, then realize the Bible's statements if given a high standard demand instead an ultimate standard. That's outlined in my link.
-
"the label 'supernatural' on behalf of their God": "Supernatural" is not in the Bible, "miracle", "magic", "marvel", and "wonder" are. If these mean that which makes people marvel and wonder (the unexplained), good; if these mean nature contrary to nature, they would be contradictory. Again, C. S. Lewis, Miracles. I quibble about supernature because God cannot contradict his own nature; but if this quibble is accepted the word can then be used.
-
"the blood of Christ washing away your sins": Yes, that's Jesus's salvation all right. Blood proves commitment unto death, proving by the highest possible standard that Jesus's commitment to save was genuine and pure and his right to everlasting life was unimpeachable. Resurrection proves his power to share that life with us, purging our corruptions. Seems very reasonable given that atheists agree right and wrong exist.
-
"They don't make arguments where they equate god to the universe or a force of nature": They do, but they don't ignore his personhood either. I respect you enough not to overwhelm you with personhood while we deal with other attributes. Christians say God is All Being, not just the (observable) universe, but the whole (known and unknown system) Cosmos: his name is "I Am", implying All Being, personally. Christians say God is many impersonal things, Light, Love, Spirit, Way. "Force" is not used this way Biblically, but Power and Authority are, Energy is used in Orthodoxy the same way, and LORD of Hosts means "I Am of Forces". So when theologians inquire in colloquy with atheists, they agree with atheists that "In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28 quoting Epimenides, also Aratus).
I did have minor "grief" or "anger" on realizing my parents' system of Christianity, while sufficient, was incomplete. I "accepted" losing the imperfections because of the much greater joy on finding further completions and on anticipating the process continuing forever. That's scientific method. I did choose Christianity:
belief is not voluntary. You never chose to be a Christian.
If true, you admit you might become a Christian without any choice; great! If false, you would need to accept the responsibility of choice and investigate both your former faith and the attack that removed certain illusions from it but left you to doubt the solid part of it. Just because you recognized that your original system was imperfect doesn't mean the system needs total discarding: rather, the scientific method is that we refine theories and surgically remove imperfections by greater observation and experiment. In this, I don't wish people luck, I wish you blessing. You're free to share about "trying to cling to something [what thing?] you know [how?] isn't true".
personally I like Christianity (real Christianity not fake internet Diest-christianity) and think it's a force for good in the world
See my other comment. It's no different from Christians saying that in the Millennium we will make, enforce, and interpret the laws, which will ultimately be Christian laws, and non-Christians will be second-rate. That's the eschatology I grew up with, and then I realized it's very similar to Islam or many other religions.
The "animals shaped like humans" view is medieval from the Zohar, and is not "according to Jews" in any official way but is only a tangential theory in mysticism. The actual metaphoric language in rabbinical Judaism is no different from the metaphorical language in the Bible, in Christianity, or in Islam comparing people to animals. Except in Islam it's stronger than the others. Jesus compared the Syrophoenician to a dog, and his disciples to foolish sheep, and the Pharisees to snakes, remember?
There would be a small subgroup of Jews who regard this as a "loophole": and they are no different from every other dehumanization movement out there that makes some Homo sapiens second-class with fewer rights. This dehumanization is not a core teaching of any sincere sect or faith.