But do events that happened hundreds of years ago mean that Christians today hate Muslims and Jews or want them dead?
Are Muslims and Jews today justified in assuming that modern Christians share the motives of people who lived nearly a thousand years ago?
Can we reasonably claim that present-day Christians should be judged by those events - or that they secretly support that kind of violence now?
Of course not.
You can't take isolated events from centuries ago, apply them to an entire group, and pretend that explains how millions of people think today. That isn't history - it's just using the past to push a narrative in the present.
You cannot divorce history from the present.
The Talmud still teaches what it taught then.
As you well know, the Crusades (with the exception of the fourth) were defensive wars in response to jihad. Your willingness to draw a moral equivalence between the Crusades and Islamic & Jewish terrorism shows how far down the road of Israel worship you have traveled.
It's just that modern Jews have found it more cost effective to fund AIPAC than take up arms and aid an invading army.
DEUST VULT! We need a modern day crusade to clear out the invaders from Europe. The modern jewish funded NGOs are just like they were back in Spain holding open the gates of Toledo. History just keeps rhyming.
But do events that happened hundreds of years ago mean that Christians today hate Muslims and Jews or want them dead?
Are Muslims and Jews today justified in assuming that modern Christians share the motives of people who lived nearly a thousand years ago?
Can we reasonably claim that present-day Christians should be judged by those events - or that they secretly support that kind of violence now?
Of course not.
You can't take isolated events from centuries ago, apply them to an entire group, and pretend that explains how millions of people think today. That isn't history - it's just using the past to push a narrative in the present.
You cannot divorce history from the present.
The Talmud still teaches what it taught then.
As you well know, the Crusades (with the exception of the fourth) were defensive wars in response to jihad. Your willingness to draw a moral equivalence between the Crusades and Islamic & Jewish terrorism shows how far down the road of Israel worship you have traveled.
It's just that modern Jews have found it more cost effective to fund AIPAC than take up arms and aid an invading army.
What the Talmud teaches and what its accusers claim are very different things.
As Sen. Graham rather foolishly admitted, the state of Israel is there to do our dirty work. If it ceased to exist, the US would just send American boys and girls into harm's way unless and until the voters put a stop to it. So we can either blame the real masters of war, or we can be thankful for our loyal little Ulster in the Middle East.
"For the apostates let there be no hope and may the kingdom of arrogance be uprooted speedily in our days May the Nazarenes [Christians] and heretics perish in an instant May they be eraased from the Book of Life and not be inscribed with the righteous"
But do events that happened hundreds of years ago mean that Christians today hate Muslims and Jews or want them dead?
Are Muslims and Jews today justified in assuming that modern Christians share the motives of people who lived nearly a thousand years ago?
Can we reasonably claim that present-day Christians should be judged by those events - or that they secretly support that kind of violence now?
Of course not.
You can't take isolated events from centuries ago, apply them to an entire group, and pretend that explains how millions of people think today. That isn't history - it's just using the past to push a narrative in the present.
You cannot divorce history from the present.
The Talmud still teaches what it taught then.
As you well know, the Crusades (with the exception of the fourth) were defensive wars in response to jihad. Your willingness to draw a moral equivalence between the Crusades and Islamic & Jewish terrorism shows how far down the road of Israel worship you have traveled.
It's just that modern Jews have found it more cost effective to fund AIPAC than take up arms and aid an invading army.
Of course history matters. But you don't get to freeze a group in time and pretend nothing has changed in hundreds or thousands of years. If you apply that standard honestly, then every group - Christians included - would be permanently defined by the worst things done in their past. You clearly don't believe that, because you immediately try to excuse and cherry pick the Crusades as merely "defensive" in nature (as if the slaughter of women and children is somehow defensive) - except for the sacking of Constantinople of course, from which Christians should get a pass, in your shoddy reasoning.
As for the Talmud, you're treating a large, complex body of writingfull of debates and different viewpointsas if it speaks with one voice. That's like pulling lines out of Leviticus and claiming that it somehow defines all Christians today.
And more to the point, if your claim is that Jews have some ongoing, built-in hostility, where is the evidence of that today? Jews are not out slaughtering Christians in the modern world. There's no ongoing pattern that supports what you're trying to argue. You're projecting ancient conflicts onto people living now, which if of course indicative of your antisemitism.
But do events that happened hundreds of years ago mean that Christians today hate Muslims and Jews or want them dead?
Are Muslims and Jews today justified in assuming that modern Christians share the motives of people who lived nearly a thousand years ago?
Can we reasonably claim that present-day Christians should be judged by those events - or that they secretly support that kind of violence now?
Of course not.
You can't take isolated events from centuries ago, apply them to an entire group, and pretend that explains how millions of people think today. That isn't history - it's just using the past to push a narrative in the present.
You cannot divorce history from the present.
The Talmud still teaches what it taught then.
As you well know, the Crusades (with the exception of the fourth) were defensive wars in response to jihad. Your willingness to draw a moral equivalence between the Crusades and Islamic & Jewish terrorism shows how far down the road of Israel worship you have traveled.
It's just that modern Jews have found it more cost effective to fund AIPAC than take up arms and aid an invading army.
Of course history matters. But you don't get to freeze a group in time and pretend nothing has changed in hundreds or thousands of years. If you apply that standard honestly, then every group - Christians included - would be permanently defined by the worst things done in their past. You clearly don't believe that, because you immediately try to excuse and cherry pick the Crusades as merely "defensive" in nature (as if the slaughter of women and children is somehow defensive) - except for the sacking of Constantinople of course, from which Christians should get a pass, in your shoddy reasoning.
As for the Talmud, you're treating a large, complex body of writingfull of debates and different viewpointsas if it speaks with one voice. That's like pulling lines out of Leviticus and claiming that it somehow defines all Christians today.
And more to the point, if your claim is that Jews have some ongoing, built-in hostility, where is the evidence of that today? Jews are not out slaughtering Christians in the modern world. There's no ongoing pattern that supports what you're trying to argue. You're projecting ancient conflicts onto people living now, which if of course indicative of your antisemitism.
Jews are slaughtering Christians in Palestine and Lebanon you fool!
Erika Kirk: “When you set out to pursue God's vision for your life, know that He will show up, He will provide, and He will honor your obedience to His calling.”@MrsErikaKirk live at WLS 2026 pic.twitter.com/rFWtx85fKV
Is a civil war coming to the repub party over America first vs neocons? No more wall kissers running our country.
2028 is going to be fun.
Lol. Thomas Massey couldn't even defeat a terrible, paper candidate in his home district, and you think that he and the moron known as MGT are going to take over the Republican Party in 2028? LMAO.
"Jews are not out slaughtering Christians in the modern world.
Actually, they are.
So, your "evidence" for the position that Christians are being targeted and slaughtered by the Jews is the bare assertions of a "pastor" on Al Jazeera (of all networks), asked leading questions by an obviously biased reporter who claims the Jews are committing genocide?
I expected better, even from a biased, antisemite such as yourself. Let me help you with actual facts:
According to the UN, there were approximately 1,000 Christians in Gaza prior to October 7th, out of more than 2 million inhabitants. They comprised approximately .04% of the population of Gaza. I say approximately because after Hamas took over in 2007, Christians have been brutally persecuted by their fellow Gazans since that time, and have either fled or gone underground. In short, Gaza is unlivable if you are Christian. You have no place in public life. The idea that the Israelis bombing of Gaza is targeting Christians is quite frankly, absurd.
If this is your "evidence" that Christians are being targeted and slaughtered by the Jews, you have no evidence.
But do events that happened hundreds of years ago mean that Christians today hate Muslims and Jews or want them dead?
Are Muslims and Jews today justified in assuming that modern Christians share the motives of people who lived nearly a thousand years ago?
Can we reasonably claim that present-day Christians should be judged by those events - or that they secretly support that kind of violence now?
Of course not.
You can't take isolated events from centuries ago, apply them to an entire group, and pretend that explains how millions of people think today. That isn't history - it's just using the past to push a narrative in the present.
You cannot divorce history from the present.
The Talmud still teaches what it taught then.
As you well know, the Crusades (with the exception of the fourth) were defensive wars in response to jihad. Your willingness to draw a moral equivalence between the Crusades and Islamic & Jewish terrorism shows how far down the road of Israel worship you have traveled.
It's just that modern Jews have found it more cost effective to fund AIPAC than take up arms and aid an invading army.
Of course history matters. But you don't get to freeze a group in time and pretend nothing has changed in hundreds or thousands of years. If you apply that standard honestly, then every group - Christians included - would be permanently defined by the worst things done in their past. You clearly don't believe that, because you immediately try to excuse and cherry pick the Crusades as merely "defensive" in nature (as if the slaughter of women and children is somehow defensive) - except for the sacking of Constantinople of course, from which Christians should get a pass, in your shoddy reasoning.
As for the Talmud, you're treating a large, complex body of writingfull of debates and different viewpointsas if it speaks with one voice. That's like pulling lines out of Leviticus and claiming that it somehow defines all Christians today.
And more to the point, if your claim is that Jews have some ongoing, built-in hostility, where is the evidence of that today? Jews are not out slaughtering Christians in the modern world. There's no ongoing pattern that supports what you're trying to argue. You're projecting ancient conflicts onto people living now, which if of course indicative of your antisemitism.
Jews are slaughtering Christians in Palestine and Lebanon you fool!
No, they're not, as addressed above. You have no evidence.
"Jews are not out slaughtering Christians in the modern world.
Actually, they are.
So, your "evidence" for the position that Christians are being targeted and slaughtered by the Jews is the bare assertions of a "pastor" on Al Jazeera (of all networks), asked leading questions by an obviously biased reporter who claims the Jews are committing genocide?
I expected better, even from a biased, antisemite such as yourself. Let me help you with actual facts:
According to the UN, there were approximately 1,000 Christians in Gaza prior to October 7th, out of more than 2 million inhabitants. They comprised approximately .04% of the population of Gaza. I say approximately because after Hamas took over in 2007, Christians have been brutally persecuted by their fellow Gazans since that time, and have either fled or gone underground. In short, Gaza is unlivable if you are Christian. You have no place in public life. The idea that the Israelis bombing of Gaza is targeting Christians is quite frankly, absurd.
If this is your "evidence" that Christians are being targeted and slaughtered by the Jews, you have no evidence.
And yet, a Christian pastor is comfortable going on television and telling people what is happening to his people. Al Jazeera lets him on to tell his story. Which gets you to put his theological credentials in air quotes. What did you think, the Jewess Bari Weiss was going to let him tell his story on CBS and undermine the indoctrination efforts of AIPAC and CUFI?
But that's fine, a Judaizer such as yourself would consider Palestinian Christians just throw away animal spirited goyim so let's look at a PBS report about the fate of Christians in Lebanon.
Or a letter from pastors calling for help to protect Christians from attacks by Israeli Settlers (more appropriately called Jewish Terrorists).
But do events that happened hundreds of years ago mean that Christians today hate Muslims and Jews or want them dead?
Are Muslims and Jews today justified in assuming that modern Christians share the motives of people who lived nearly a thousand years ago?
Can we reasonably claim that present-day Christians should be judged by those events - or that they secretly support that kind of violence now?
Of course not.
You can't take isolated events from centuries ago, apply them to an entire group, and pretend that explains how millions of people think today. That isn't history - it's just using the past to push a narrative in the present.
You cannot divorce history from the present.
The Talmud still teaches what it taught then.
As you well know, the Crusades (with the exception of the fourth) were defensive wars in response to jihad. Your willingness to draw a moral equivalence between the Crusades and Islamic & Jewish terrorism shows how far down the road of Israel worship you have traveled.
It's just that modern Jews have found it more cost effective to fund AIPAC than take up arms and aid an invading army.
Of course history matters. But you don't get to freeze a group in time and pretend nothing has changed in hundreds or thousands of years. If you apply that standard honestly, then every group - Christians included - would be permanently defined by the worst things done in their past. You clearly don't believe that, because you immediately try to excuse and cherry pick the Crusades as merely "defensive" in nature (as if the slaughter of women and children is somehow defensive) - except for the sacking of Constantinople of course, from which Christians should get a pass, in your shoddy reasoning.
As for the Talmud, you're treating a large, complex body of writingfull of debates and different viewpointsas if it speaks with one voice. That's like pulling lines out of Leviticus and claiming that it somehow defines all Christians today.
And more to the point, if your claim is that Jews have some ongoing, built-in hostility, where is the evidence of that today? Jews are not out slaughtering Christians in the modern world. There's no ongoing pattern that supports what you're trying to argue. You're projecting ancient conflicts onto people living now, which if of course indicative of your antisemitism.
Jews are slaughtering Christians in Palestine and Lebanon you fool!
No, they're not, as addressed above. You have no evidence.
You didnt provide any evidence whatsoever that Israel isnt killing Christians in Palestine or Lebanon...
Do you support Israel giving weapons and munitions, that American tax dollars paid for. to Azerbaijan, who used those weapons to kill Armenian Christians and take their land?
"Jews are not out slaughtering Christians in the modern world.
Actually, they are.
So, your "evidence" for the position that Christians are being targeted and slaughtered by the Jews is the bare assertions of a "pastor" on Al Jazeera (of all networks), asked leading questions by an obviously biased reporter who claims the Jews are committing genocide?
I expected better, even from a biased, antisemite such as yourself. Let me help you with actual facts:
According to the UN, there were approximately 1,000 Christians in Gaza prior to October 7th, out of more than 2 million inhabitants. They comprised approximately .04% of the population of Gaza. I say approximately because after Hamas took over in 2007, Christians have been brutally persecuted by their fellow Gazans since that time, and have either fled or gone underground. In short, Gaza is unlivable if you are Christian. You have no place in public life. The idea that the Israelis bombing of Gaza is targeting Christians is quite frankly, absurd.
If this is your "evidence" that Christians are being targeted and slaughtered by the Jews, you have no evidence.
And yet, a Christian pastor is comfortable going on television and telling people what is happening to his people. Al Jazeera lets him on to tell his story. Which gets you to put his theological credentials in air quotes. What did you think, the Jewess Bari Weiss was going to let him tell his story on CBS and undermine the indoctrination efforts of AIPAC and CUFI?
But that's fine, a Judaizer such as yourself would consider Palestinian Christians just throw away animal spirited goyim so let's look at a PBS report about the fate of Christians in Lebanon.
Or a letter from pastors calling for help to protect Christians from attacks by Israeli Settlers (more appropriately called Jewish Terrorists).
But no standard of evidence is sufficient for you because you don't care.
Yes, I typically do dismiss the bare assertions of people with an agenda, especially when they contradict known and undisputed facts with baseless positions. As someone who admits he believes in Candace Owens' conspiracy theories, it comes as no surprise you were suckered in by this guy, as you appear to share many of the same beliefs.
Mitri Raheb is indeed a Palestinian pastor, but his views are far from representative of historic or orthodox Christianity. As a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bethlehem, he promotes a theological framework often referred to as Palestinian liberation or contextual theology. This approach reads Scripture primarily through the lens of modern political struggle, particularly anti-colonial and post-colonial narratives.
In Raheb's writings - such as Faith in the Face of Empire and Decolonizing Palestine - he reinterprets core biblical narratives as fundamentally shaped by resistance to imperial power, extending that framework directly into modern geopolitical disputes. He also sharply critiques traditional Western theology and accuses Christian Zionist perspectives of "weaponizing" Scripture for political ends.
The issue here is not whether he is allowed to speak on television, but whether his perspective reflects orthodox Christian teaching. His work prioritizes political ideology as the primary interpretive lens for Scripture, which places it outside the mainstream of historic Christian theology. That doesn't make him irrelevant, but it does mean he should be understood as an advocate of a particular ideological perspective rather than a neutral or representative Christian voice.
In short, the fact that someone is given a platform does not automatically validate their theological credibility - it simply means their views align with the editorial choices of that outlet.
As for the claim I am a Judaizer, are you saying that I believe non-Jewish (Gentile) converts have to adopt Jewish customs, such as circumcision and dietary laws (the traditional meaning of Judaizer)? If so, please cite to any evidence in support of this position.
Sounds like it's a lie and pejorative and nothing more for critiquing the "evidence" you've cited in support of your false claim Israel is targeting and slaughtering Christians.
As for the attacks on settlers, we have been over the whole collective guilt thing, my anti-semitic friend.
I once described you as the Sam Lowry starter kit. As much as it pains me, I need to apologize to Sam for making that comparison. Sam can at least cite to evidence in support of his theories, and makes cogent arguments. He is a formidable opponent, in that regard. You are nothing like him.
But do events that happened hundreds of years ago mean that Christians today hate Muslims and Jews or want them dead?
Are Muslims and Jews today justified in assuming that modern Christians share the motives of people who lived nearly a thousand years ago?
Can we reasonably claim that present-day Christians should be judged by those events - or that they secretly support that kind of violence now?
Of course not.
You can't take isolated events from centuries ago, apply them to an entire group, and pretend that explains how millions of people think today. That isn't history - it's just using the past to push a narrative in the present.
You cannot divorce history from the present.
The Talmud still teaches what it taught then.
As you well know, the Crusades (with the exception of the fourth) were defensive wars in response to jihad. Your willingness to draw a moral equivalence between the Crusades and Islamic & Jewish terrorism shows how far down the road of Israel worship you have traveled.
It's just that modern Jews have found it more cost effective to fund AIPAC than take up arms and aid an invading army.
Of course history matters. But you don't get to freeze a group in time and pretend nothing has changed in hundreds or thousands of years. If you apply that standard honestly, then every group - Christians included - would be permanently defined by the worst things done in their past. You clearly don't believe that, because you immediately try to excuse and cherry pick the Crusades as merely "defensive" in nature (as if the slaughter of women and children is somehow defensive) - except for the sacking of Constantinople of course, from which Christians should get a pass, in your shoddy reasoning.
As for the Talmud, you're treating a large, complex body of writingfull of debates and different viewpointsas if it speaks with one voice. That's like pulling lines out of Leviticus and claiming that it somehow defines all Christians today.
And more to the point, if your claim is that Jews have some ongoing, built-in hostility, where is the evidence of that today? Jews are not out slaughtering Christians in the modern world. There's no ongoing pattern that supports what you're trying to argue. You're projecting ancient conflicts onto people living now, which if of course indicative of your antisemitism.
Jews are slaughtering Christians in Palestine and Lebanon you fool!
No, they're not, as addressed above. You have no evidence.
You didnt provide any evidence whatsoever that Israel isnt killing Christians in Palestine or Lebanon...
Do you support Israel giving weapons and munitions, that American tax dollars paid for. to Azerbaijan, who used those weapons to kill Armenian Christians and take their land?
That's not how the burden of proof works. The person making a positive claim - especially a serious accusation like deliberate persecution - bears the responsibility of providing evidence to support it. I am not obligated to disprove an allegation that hasn't been substantiated in the first place.
You're effectively asking me to prove a negative, which is neither logically sound nor a standard anyone consistently applies. If you assert that Israel is systematically killing Christians, the burden is on you to provide credible, verifiable evidence demonstrating that claim. Until that's done, there's nothing substantive for me to refute.
As for your second question, it introduces a separate issue entirely - shifting from Israel to U.S. policy and Azerbaijanwhich doesn't establish or prove your original claim. Changing topics doesn't substitute for evidence. If you want to discuss U.S. foreign policy or the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, that's a different conversation, but it doesn't relieve you of the responsibility to support your initial assertion.
🔵 A growing number of Jewish Democrats say they feel increasingly unwelcome in the Democratic Party as fights over Gaza and Israel intensify, warning the backlash could hurt Democrats with Jewish voters in key 2028 battleground states (Axios) pic.twitter.com/LPwdlBdghk
"Al Jazeera is funded in whole or in part by the Qatari government".
Miss that part, did you?
Address the claims made, don't shoot the messenger.
Source matters.
Truth matters.
Which is why the source matters.
Which is why facts matter. If you unthinkingly accept things because Fox News reports them and automatically dismiss everything Al Jazeera or RT report as propaganda, you'll never find either.
"Al Jazeera is funded in whole or in part by the Qatari government".
Miss that part, did you?
Address the claims made, don't shoot the messenger.
Source matters.
Truth matters.
Which is why the source matters.
Which is why facts matter. If you unthinkingly accept things because Fox News reports them and automatically dismiss everything Al Jazeera or RT report as propaganda, you'll never find either.
As it happens, I don't "unthinkingly accept things", and do not even watch/read Fox News.
Al Jazeera is well known for a hard anti-Israel slant, has been for decades. So maybe take your own advice and take a step back and think for a bit before your next rant.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
