Which is why that potential whataboutism was only one sentence tacked onto the end of my comment, while the rest of my comment was a direct rebuttal.

Only focusing on the easiest points to argue against won't save you.

That explanation would've been a lot more convincing if it was included before I called them out for using the Christian name.

"They used the Christian name because otherwise nobody would've understood" sounds a lot like a desperate attempt to cover for having a Christian show them up about knowing the basic terminology of Judaism while they complain about Christians "appropriating their culture".

A culture which by the way, Christians have just as much claim to. And Muslims as well. Turns out that all of the Abrahamic religions actually have a legitimate claim to these scriptures.

The language you used implies they don’t care about the argument and that the lack of care is what counteracts an argument instead of facts.

I only threw in that line as counter to their closing sentence of "stop helping the Christians appropriate my culture." I find it hard to believe that this supposed Christian appropriation actually bothers them very much if they themselves default to the Christian terminology. If you insist on calling my argument an appeal to emotion, then I will insist that I was only countering their prior appeal to emotion.

Perpetuating the “Judaism is unnecessary now” narrative is part of what breeds antisemitism and makes for more hate crimes.

By that same logic, every single religion in the world perpetuates hate crimes against every single other religion. The Judaism/Christianity relationship isn't special because literally every religion that isn't Judaism inherently includes the idea that Judaism is unnecessary. Just the same as how Judaism inherently includes the belief that every religion except Judaism is unnecessary.

Why not demand that Exodus be called Shemot?

Because prior to this interaction, I (a Christian) have no recollection of ever hearing the term Shemot before. If they had called it Shemot that would've been even better. But as it stands, the term Torah is very basic in the context of understanding Jewish terminology

Sure it’s something that Christians learn about, but it’s not something seen as Holy as it is in Judaism. The vast majority of Christians do not really celebrate Passover, just as Jews don’t celebrate Christ or Christmas.

That all comes down to the difference in their views of Christ. If you believe that Christ was not the messiah, then you have no real reason to celebrate him. If you do believe that Christ was the messiah, then you have incentive to celebrate important events in his life and less incentive to celebrate the feasts which were only instituted in order to point to him.

Why would I celebrate the passover, a feast that points to the sacrifice of the coming messiah, when I could just celebrate the life of that messiah instead.

I think the best comparison I can think of is something like world war 2. We don't celebrate D day, or the battle fo the bulge, or the battle of Midway. Because instead we can celebrate remembrance day. Why celebrate every major battle when you could celebrate them all at once in the winning of the war?

Or if you're Jewish, you celebrate those battles because you don't believe the war is over yet.

That "seem" is a tricksy word. Someone who is good at trickery is going to seem trustworthy, otherwise they probably wouldn't be good at trickery.

They live more comfortably than you do. Food and water freely available, plenty of space, other animals to socialize. No worries or responsibilities, not even a real concept of the outside world. The farm is all they've ever known, and it's all they ever need to know.

If we're putting bacon, sausages, cutlets, and ribs in the same category because "it's all pig". Then I want to make sure that bulb onions, shallots, scallions, and leeks are also counted as one thing because they're all just onions.

Look me in the eye and tell me that bulb onions and shallots are different but bacon and cutlets aren't.

I didn't make any appeals to emotion, I just pointed out their own hypocrisy. If you want people to believe that you actually think Jewish culture is being appropriated by Christianity, the very least you need to do is not use Christian terminology when there exists widely known Jewish terminology for the same thing. If you don't know enough about Judaism to know the name Torah, then you have no right to complain about the interaction between Christianity and Judaism.

And of course Christianity believes that Judaism is unnecessary now. Just like Mormons believe the Christianity is unnecessary because they have the v3 update. It doesn't erase Judaism, heck the thing that started this whole thread was the fact that Jewish scripture is included directly in the Bible. The old testament stories are the same either way. The only difference is whether you believe that Jesus was the savior who fulfilled the law and brought the new law, or if you believe that the messiah hasn't come yet. But those stories still point to a future savior.

The important detail isn't which exact term for Jewish scripture will most closely match the old testament in Christianity. The important detail is that "old testament" as a name is meaningless in reference to Jewish scripture, because the term only has meaning if you consider the new testament as equally valid scripture.

So they're arguing that referring to Moses in a Christian context is "appropriating" Jewish culture, while doing the exact same thing themselves in the exact same comment. If they actually cared at all they'd have known that using any Jewish name for the scripture would've served their point better than "old testament".

As for the Christmas thing, it doesn't make sense to call a Christmas movie Jewish because if you actually follow Judaism then the birth of Christ isn't something worth celebrating to you. Any Christ as the savior narrative goes directly against what Judaism believes about Christ. And any Christmas movie without Christ as a savior narrative, might as well be considered non-religious.

Nah.

Steak is delicious, and at the end of the day it's only a cow.

I'm sorry for, pointing out how popular isn't the best choice of word?

But no matter how you slice it, popular isn't a great descriptor. Whether you choose the prescriptivist "the dictionary says x thus the word means x no matter what" or the descriptivist "most people use the word to mean y thus the word means y no matter what", in this case they both agree.

Both groups agree that when I say "Jim is popular" it makes you think that people generally like Jim. It evokes some level of communal approval. The dictionary literally defines the word to mean likeable, and the general usage still seems to denote general approval.

So either way, it doesn't represent the Empress situation. A situation where the majority of the community at best doesn't care and at worst openly dislikes her as a person because of her behavior, but still comes back for the games. She has a monopoly, but that doesn't make her inherently popular. Most people who know seem to dislike, and most who don't will also have no bearing on her popularity.

But you did go on to compare this situation to the war on VCRs. Which I think is a poor comparison. You gave your opinion, so I gave mine. That's kind of how this works here for everyone, not just for you.

You're not helping anything. Shit like that just builds resentment.