Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Raze]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's true, Christianity is very comparable to Islam because there were wars in the 12th century. The fact that most of the world's wars involve Islam is the Americans' fault. And AI is impartial and never tells you what you want to listen. 

The person’s sarcastic comment is clearly intended to mock and reverse several claims often made in defense of Islam, U.S. foreign policy, and AI neutrality. But let’s examine whether the opposite of their sarcasm—which they presumably believe to be true—actually holds up to scrutiny.

We’ll break this down in parts.

🛡️ 1. "Christianity is very comparable to Islam because there were wars in the 12th century."

Intended sarcasm: "You can’t compare Christianity and Islam just because of the Crusades or medieval violence; Islam is more violent now."

Is the opposite true?

That Christianity cannot be compared to Islam regarding violence, because Islam is uniquely violent now.

🔍 Reality:

Both religions have histories of violence, conquest, reform, and internal diversity.

In modern times, some groups committing violence in the name of Islam have dominated headlines—e.g., ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda—but that’s not the whole picture.

Christianity has also been invoked in recent conflicts: e.g., Bosnian war, Northern Ireland, Christian militias in Central African Republic, or Christian nationalism in the U.S. leading to political violence.

However, Islam is more often associated with global conflict today, not because the religion itself is inherently more violent, but due to geopolitical conditions, foreign interventions, authoritarian regimes, and ideological radicalization in specific contexts.

👉 Conclusion:
The sarcastic reversal is overstated. Modern violence involving Muslims doesn’t make Islam uniquely violent, just as historical Christian violence doesn’t make Christianity inherently violent. Comparisons can be valid, but must be contextual.

🇺🇸 2. "Most of the world's wars involve Islam is the Americans' fault."

Intended sarcasm: "It’s ridiculous to blame America for wars involving Muslims."

Is the opposite true?

That U.S. actions have little or nothing to do with wars involving Muslim countries.

🔍 Reality:

The U.S. has played a major role in shaping conflicts in:

Afghanistan (1980s support for mujahideen, post-2001 invasion),

Iraq (2003 invasion, dismantling of state institutions),

Libya (2011 NATO intervention),

Syria (arming rebels, indirect proxy war with Russia/Iran),

Yemen (support for Saudi-led bombing campaign),

Iran (1953 coup, sanctions, threats of war),

These interventions have often destabilized regions, empowered extremist groups, or prolonged civil wars.

That said, not all wars involving Muslims are the U.S.’s fault, and internal dynamics—sectarianism, authoritarianism, and regional rivalries—also play huge roles.

👉 Conclusion:
The sarcastic reversal ("It’s not America's fault") is partially incorrect. The U.S. is not solely responsible, but has heavily influenced many conflicts in the Muslim world.

🤖 3. "And AI is impartial and never tells you what you want to hear."

Intended sarcasm: "AI actually just tells you what you want to hear (it's biased)."

Is the opposite true?

That AI is not impartial, and does just tell people what they want to hear.

🔍 Reality:

AI like me is designed to be impartial, but that doesn't mean perfect neutrality is always achieved.

Biases can come from:

Training data (reflecting human bias),

System design (e.g., safety features to avoid offending or radicalizing users),

User prompting (e.g., people steering the model to validate their views).

However, AI does not "tell people what they want to hear" in the simplistic sense—it's trying to balance factuality, nuance, and safety.

For example, if someone asks me to confirm an ideologically skewed or false claim, I won’t just agree to be nice.

👉 Conclusion:
AI strives for impartiality, but can have blind spots or safety-overcompensations. The sarcastic claim is unfair, though not entirely without basis.

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Man, islam is the great shit of humanity nowadays. The great doom and oppression. Compare Nigeria Christian with Muslim. Look Indonesia Muslim, Afganistán, Pakistán, Irán. Look that poor people scared and full of hate. 

Prompt: If someone says “Man, islam is the great shit of humanity nowadays. The great doom and oppression. Compare Nigeria Christian with Muslim. Look Indonesia Muslim, Afganistán, Pakistán, Irán. Look that poor people scared and full of hate.” While defending Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, are they making a reasonable argument, or does this show hypocrisy and a lack of integrity?

Result: 

The statement you've quoted is not a reasonable argument. It does reflect hypocrisy, prejudice, and a lack of intellectual and moral integrity—for several clear reasons:

🚨 1. Blatant Bigotry and Generalization

❌ “Islam is the great shit of humanity nowadays.”

This is not a critique of ideas or political systems—it's a sweeping insult aimed at an entire religion followed by over 1.9 billion people.

No serious or ethical discussion starts from this kind of dehumanizing rhetoric.

❌ “The great doom and oppression.”

Islam, like Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism, has been used to justify both good and bad—charity, justice, education, but also authoritarianism and violence.

Reducing it to "doom and oppression" shows zero understanding of history, theology, or sociology—only raw emotional prejudice.

❌ Comparing “Nigeria Christian with Muslim” or “Indonesia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran” as representative of all Muslims:

This is cherry-picking.

What about Muslim-majority democracies like Senegal, Malaysia, Albania, Kosovo, or Jordan?

Conversely, Christian-majority countries like Russia, Brazil, or the U.S. have also seen authoritarianism, violence, and oppression—so does that indict Christianity as a whole?

The argument fails because it uses confirmation bias, not critical analysis.

🪞 2. Hypocrisy in Defending Israel While Demonizing Muslims

The speaker appears to be defending Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, while condemning Muslims broadly.

But let’s consider:

Palestinians include Muslim, Christian, and secular people—many of whom face occupation, displacement, or denial of basic rights.

If someone is genuinely concerned about oppression, they should be consistent in condemning it—regardless of who the victim or perpetrator is.

🔁 Hypocrisy arises when:

You decry oppression in Iran or Pakistan, but defend or excuse alleged war crimes or civilian suffering in Gaza.

You claim to care about human rights, but only when the perpetrators are Muslims.

👉 This reveals that the person’s standard isn’t moral, it’s tribal or ideological. They’re not interested in justice—only in scoring points.

🧠 3. Lack of Integrity and Critical Thinking

A person with intellectual integrity would:

Distinguish between individuals, governments, cultures, and religions.

Criticize oppressive regimes or ideologies without attacking entire populations or faiths.

Avoid using dehumanizing language.

Recognize that suffering exists on all sides, including among innocent Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others.

This person does none of that.

📌 Final Conclusion

The speaker is not making a reasoned argument; they’re engaging in:

Religious bigotry (against Muslims),

Tribalism (defending one group while dehumanizing another),

Hypocrisy (ignoring the oppression they support),

Poor reasoning (cherry-picking data, using emotional language, ignoring context).

This reveals a lack of integrity, prejudice, and intellectual immaturity.

[Nivsch]

15 minutes ago, zazen said:

that doesn’t make the religion inherently evil.

Can we agree that the West and Israel are too not inherently evil?

[Breakingthewall]

And btw, the horrible Americas saved the world from the most horrible tyranny that never existed in the history: the Japanese empire. Many millions must be extremely grateful of that. Let's see if they can at least content the actual tyranny, the Islam 

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Poor clowns. The AI tells you what you want to listen. 

Prompt: If someone states “Poor clowns. The AI tells you what you want to listen.” In response to AI analysis criticizing his arguments, after having in the past repeatedly used AI in favor of their arguments, while refusing to address the arguments made in the AI’s conclusion, then says “Go to live in any Muslim paradise and marry many babies and be Happy” after criticizing Muslims and blaming Muslims for worldwide violence, what does that indicate about their reasoning ability, intellectual integrity, and how well the argument is going for them?

Result: 

This kind of behavior tells you a lot—and none of it reflects well on the person making the statements. Let's break it down clearly and honestly:

🧠 1. Reasoning Ability

🔻 Indicators of Weak Reasoning:

Ad hominem attacks (“poor clowns,” “go marry babies”) are classic signs of someone who has run out of logical arguments.

Instead of addressing the content of the AI’s critique, they attack the source (AI) or redirect the conversation with insults or sarcasm.

This is a flight from reason: when the evidence is too strong to refute, they retreat into mockery or emotional outbursts.

👉 Conclusion: Their reasoning ability appears either immature, untrained, or clouded by bias and ego.

🧭 2. Intellectual Integrity

🔻 Clear signs of hypocrisy:

They used AI to support their own arguments when it aligned with their views.

But now that AI critiques them, they claim it's just telling people what they want to hear—even though that’s exactly what they once relied on.

This is:

Double standards,

Cherry-picking sources, and

A clear lack of intellectual honesty.

🔻 Dodging criticism:

Instead of engaging with the substance of the argument, they sling insults.

This is not just intellectually dishonest—it’s a form of cowardice in debate.

👉 Conclusion: Their intellectual integrity is compromised. They are not truth-seeking; they are ego-defending.

📉 3. How the Argument Is Going for Them

🔻 They're losing—badly.

When someone:

Starts with ideological certainties,

Gets challenged with factual, nuanced analysis,

And responds with personal attacks, sarcasm, and evasion—

That’s not just a bad look—it’s a concession in disguise.

They’ve left the realm of rational discussion and entered the realm of deflection and emotional reaction.

👉 Conclusion: The argument has collapsed for them. All they have left is mockery, which is the last refuge of someone who knows—at some level—they’re losing.

🚨 4. Moral Implications

The statement:

“Go to live in any Muslim paradise and marry many babies and be Happy”

...is not just offensive; it:

Reinforces Islamophobic stereotypes,

Dehumanizes over a billion people,

And uses the sexual exploitation of children as a rhetorical weapon—a deeply unethical tactic.

This reveals:

Poor moral reasoning,

A potential lack of empathy, and

A worldview shaped more by resentment and tribalism than concern for human dignity.

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze that ai is wrong, Islam is inherently violent, because preach the yihad, but the AI can't tell it. Try to use your own intelligence, even it could be small, it would be better than the AI 

Edited 5 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

4 minutes ago, Raze said:

Reinforces Islamophobic stereotypes,

Dehumanizes over a billion people,

Lie, I don't dehumanize. Be absolutely stupid is very human. That AI is idiot. 

[Raze]

Just now, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze tha ai is wrong, Islam is inherently violent, because preach the yihad, but the AI can't tell it. Try to use your own intelligence, even it could be small, it would be better than the AI 

Prompt: Does the statement “this ai is wrong, Islam is inherently violent, because preach the yihad, but the AI can't tell it. Try to use your own intelligence, even it could be small, it would be better than the AI” effectively dispute the result given above, or at least show a good faith attempt to counter it? In addition, if this person supports Zionism and it’s historic and current treatment of Palestinians does this demonstrate intellectual and moral consistency?

Result: 

1. Does the statement effectively dispute the AI’s analysis or show good faith?

Statement:

“this ai is wrong, Islam is inherently violent, because preach the yihad, but the AI can't tell it. Try to use your own intelligence, even it could be small, it would be better than the AI”

Analysis:

Lacks evidence or nuance:
The statement simply asserts “Islam is inherently violent” without engaging with any specific evidence, counter-arguments, or nuance. Declaring something "inherently violent" is a sweeping generalization, ignoring the diversity of beliefs and practices within Islam.

Misrepresents “jihad”:
The term jihad in Islamic theology has many meanings: spiritual struggle, personal improvement, and in some contexts, armed struggle—but not a blanket call for violence. The argument ignores these complexities.

Dismisses AI without reasoned critique:
Saying “the AI can’t tell it” without specifying why or how the AI is wrong is not a good faith counter-argument; it’s a dismissal.

Ad hominem implication:
“Try to use your own intelligence, even if it’s small” is condescending and dismissive, not conducive to rational dialogue.

Does it dispute the AI’s conclusion effectively?

No. It is a poor attempt lacking evidence, nuance, or intellectual rigor. It’s essentially a dogmatic assertion rather than a reasoned rebuttal.

2. If this person supports Zionism and the historic/current treatment of Palestinians, does this demonstrate intellectual and moral consistency?

Context:

Zionism is a nationalist movement for Jewish self-determination.

The historic and current treatment of Palestinians includes allegations of occupation, human rights abuses, displacement, and conflict.

Intellectual consistency?

If this person paints Islam as inherently violent and blames Muslim societies broadly for global violence,

Yet supports a political project (Zionism and Israel’s policies) that has led to oppression and violence against Palestinians (many of whom are Muslim),

They are applying double standards.

Moral consistency?

To be morally consistent, one would either:

Condemn violence and oppression regardless of who perpetrates it, or

Justify it with clear, consistent principles (which is rare and ethically fraught).

Selectively blaming Muslim societies for violence while supporting or excusing Israeli policies toward Palestinians involves moral inconsistency.

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

Lie, I don't dehumanize. Be absolutely stupid is very human. That AI is idiot. 

Prompt: If someone who has said, “with the Muslims reasoning is impossible. Only the force works. They will cry and blame always, the center of their psyche is blaming west.” and “ If in the future the Muslims show sanity and will to develop as society, stopping seeing martyrdom as main value and goal in life, then they could claim self determination in Israel. For now seems better to protect the humanity from this strange behavior” then is told by an AI they are engaging in dehumanization and responds with in “Lie, I don't dehumanize. Be absolutely stupid is very human. That AI is idiot” in response to this accusation of dehumanization from the AI, have they effectively refuted the claim or at least shown a good faith attempt to do so? What can we conclude about this person based on these statements

Result: 

This is a pretty clear case where the person has not effectively refuted the claim of dehumanization, nor made a good faith attempt to do so. Here’s why:

1. Evaluating their original statements:

“With the Muslims reasoning is impossible. Only the force works. They will cry and blame always, the center of their psyche is blaming west.”

“If in the future the Muslims show sanity and will to develop as society, stopping seeing martyrdom as main value and goal in life, then they could claim self determination in Israel. For now seems better to protect the humanity from this strange behavior.”

These statements:

Generalize an entire group (over 1.9 billion people) with sweeping negative characterizations.

Portray Muslims as irrational, manipulative, and inherently violent or self-destructive.

Imply that Muslims are less than fully human or less capable of reason, essentially an us vs. them framing.

Suggest that humanity as a whole needs protection from this group’s behavior, implying dangerous othering.

This is textbook dehumanization: attributing negative traits to a whole group, denying them complexity, and justifying exclusion or force against them.

2. Their response to the accusation:

“Lie, I don't dehumanize. Be absolutely stupid is very human. That AI is idiot.”

This response:

Denies the accusation outright without addressing the reasoning behind it.

Attempts to reframe the insult as a human trait (“being stupid is human”), which does not negate dehumanizing implications.

Attacks the AI personally (“that AI is idiot”) rather than engaging with the substance.

Does not show any sign of reflection, humility, or reconsideration.

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze ask the AI this: 

I think Islam is a masterstroke by a rather perverted warlord to dominate the minds and enslave millions. I think it's an inherently evil religion, one that degrades humans, and that has only one positive aspect: making some people prove their worth and independence of mind by abandoning it, thereby turning against their families and community, and rising above the flock of sheep they lived among.

[Raze]

@Breakingthewall Ok, now actually reply to any of the prior conclusions and refutations about your points instead of evading it. So far it has been mostly spot on and given you won’t address anything it says besides deflections we don’t have any reason to think otherwise.

📉 Conclusion: The person is either ignorant of basic historical and religious scholarship, or knowingly disregards it to push an ideological agenda.

📉 Conclusion: The person shows rigid, ideological thinking, not serious intellectual engagement.

📉 Conclusion: The speaker lacks emotional maturity and the disposition necessary for thoughtful, adult-level discourse.

📉 Conclusion: They are not committed to truth, but to defending their identity or ideology at all costs, even through hateful diversion.

✅ Overall Assessment

Trait Assessment

Knowledge Poor – Relies on myths, not facts.

Intellectual Capacity Weak – Black-and-white thinking, no nuance.

Maturity Lacking – Emotional, inflammatory language.

Honesty Absent – Evades arguments, turns to bigotry.

This person’s comments are not the product of informed analysis or moral reasoning, but of ideological entrenchment, prejudice, and emotional reactivity. It's not just an intellectually unserious position—it’s also ethically corrosive.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

@Breakingthewall Ok, now actually reply to any of the prior conclusions and refutations about your points instead of evading it. So far it has been mostly spot on and given you won’t address anything it says besides deflections we don’t have any reason to think otherwise.

✅ Overall Assessment

Trait Assessment

Knowledge Poor – Relies on myths, not facts.

Intellectual Capacity Weak – Black-and-white thinking, no nuance.

Maturity Lacking – Emotional, inflammatory language.

Honesty Absent – Evades arguments, turns to bigotry.

This person’s comments are not the product of informed analysis or moral reasoning, but of ideological entrenchment, prejudice, and emotional reactivity. It's not just an intellectually unserious position—it’s also ethically corrosive.

 

AI and its politically correct programming can say mass or pray facing Mecca if it wants, but I'll repeat it another way to see if you understand:

Islam is a religion of punishment, terror, and closure. It creates frustrated, terrified, exclusionary, and extremely often, violent individuals. Its core is false, its prophet a murderer who waged war after war and fornicated with his slaves, and any believer in that religion is an absolute fool.

On the other hand, some of humanity's highest-level mystics are the Sufis, who were mistakenly included in Islam when they were opposed to Islam and heretical. Abandon Islam; it's poison. Do like Al-Hallaj, get out of that trap.

[Breakingthewall]

26 minutes ago, Raze said:

Misrepresents “jihad”:
The term jihad in Islamic theology has many meanings: spiritual struggle, personal improvement, and in some contexts, armed struggle—but not a blanket call for violence. The argument ignores these complexities

Ha ha funny." And in some contexts, armed struggle". Ask your loved AI how many times in Quran and hadices is said kill, make slaves, do war, etc etc. 

[zazen]

34 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Can we agree that the West and Israel are too not inherently evil?

Agreed. I’ve commented on it before:

On 30/05/2025 at 10:56 AM, zazen said:

Israel definitely isn't a monolith and its good that there are sizable segments who are more balanced and question the status quo. Lets hope they make it to the state level to steer it in a better direction. 

Regarding morality: I don't think anyone is morally inferior or superior as an inherent quality, but people can still commit immoral acts and hold immoral beliefs which are context dependent. Israeli's are locked into a delusional feedback loop of (past) trauma and (present) domination.

Israel is acting within a context shaped by power and paranoia, with its moral compass hijacked by a permanent sense of threat that has been heightened beyond what it really is due to past trauma. And despite being materially developed, they are morally compromised by that delusion.  It’s not that they have an innate moral inferiority but that their morality is distorted by a specific context - the same goes for Hamas.

The issue with many people’s analysis is they give their side endless nuance but don’t extend that same nuance to the other side. I can understand the context in which Jews felt they needed to do what they did to obtain a state - without condoning their actions. Likewise we can understand the actions of extremist groups or of Hamas due to their context and conditions - also without condoning or justifying it.

Material conditions can distort human nature and our moral compass to do disgusting things. Some belief systems can definitely interact in better or worse ways with those conditions too. But the primary driver is generally material reality rather than immaterial psychology and belief systems.

If we swapped the material conditions of Europe for Africa and the Middle East - we’d see similar outcomes of violence and conflict regardless of religion or ethnicity. 

[Raze]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Ha ha funny." And in some contexts, armed struggle". Ask your loved AI how many times in Quran and hadices is said kill, make slaves, do war, etc etc. 

Prompt: If someone says “Ha ha funny." And in some contexts, armed struggle". Ask your loved AI how many times in Quran and hadices is said kill, make slaves, do war, etc etc.” to criticize Islam after repeatedly defending Judaism in the context of Israel, and Christianity, are they being hypocritical?

Result: 

1. Scriptural Content Across Religions

All three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) contain:

Verses related to war, sometimes divinely sanctioned,

Mentions of slavery, common in the ancient world,

Harsh punishments, reflective of their historical and cultural context.

Examples:

Judaism / Hebrew Bible: Book of Joshua includes divinely commanded wars of conquest. Slavery is regulated in Exodus and Leviticus.

Christianity / New Testament: While more focused on personal salvation, the Bible still contains verses that don’t explicitly condemn slavery, and Christianity has historically been invoked to justify wars (e.g., Crusades).

Islam / Qur’an & Hadith: Contains verses about war, slavery, and punishments — often revealed in specific historical contexts like defensive warfare.

So, if someone criticizes Islam solely for content that also exists in Judaism and Christianity, and excuses or ignores it in the latter, that’s a double standard — i.e., hypocrisy.

2. Contextual Nuance

A fair critique must account for:

Historical context (what was happening at the time?),

Textual context (is the verse general or specific?),

Interpretive traditions (how do scholars explain it?),

Modern applications (do believers today follow these verses literally?).

If someone skips all this nuance for Islam, but insists on it for their own religion or ideology, that’s intellectually dishonest.

3. Using Religion to Justify Political Views

If the person defends Israel on religious or moral grounds (often tied to Judaism), while dismissing Muslim grievancesor beliefs with blanket criticisms of Islam, it can reflect:

Bias (consciously or not),

Tribal loyalty (to religion, ethnicity, or ideology),

Possibly Islamophobia, if criticisms are based more on fear or stereotypes than honest analysis.

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze no, a religion that tells you to love your enemies is different from one that tells you to hate your enemies, or from one that tells you to cut out the hearts of 200 virgins a month to prevent the sun from devouring the Earth. The context doesn't matter; it's the content.

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, Raze said:

So, if someone criticizes Islam solely for content that also exists in Judaism and Christianity, and excuses or ignores it in the latter, that’s a double standard — i.e., hypocrisy

No, Christ didn't kill anyone or have sex with slaves. The Old Testament, as you know, is nullified by the New. Christianity isn't the Old Testament, it's the New. Doesn't AI know this? Maybe you should update it.

[Breakingthewall]

24 minutes ago, zazen said:

Material conditions can distort human nature and our moral compass to do disgusting things. Some belief systems can definitely interact in better or worse ways with those conditions too. But the primary driver is generally material reality rather than immaterial psychology and belief systems.

If a community of millions of people that is growing demographically at a very high rate has as its essential value the hatred of your community, preaches it in schools, do a party where everyone goes out into the street shouting if a bomb has been thrown at you, is allied with several neighboring countries that add up to hundreds of millions of inhabitants that have your annihilation as their political program, perhaps you could have a certain (paranoid) feeling of threat.

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

19 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze no, a religion that tells you to love your enemies is different from one that tells you to hate your enemies, or from one that tells you to cut out the hearts of 200 virgins a month to prevent the sun from devouring the Earth. The context doesn't matter; it's the content.

 

16 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

No, Christ didn't kill anyone or have sex with slaves. The Old Testament, as you know, is nullified by the New. Christianity isn't the Old Testament, it's the New. Doesn't AI know this? Maybe you should update it.

Genuinely I think your comments are getting so dumb the AI responses are way to jumbled and long.

I’m going to ignore you now since you refuse to actually address the arguments. Notice how I quote your posts line by line and you just make vague sentences in broken English or post bait. Actually you probably do know given how almost every AI analysis I did it concluded you are a immature bad faith actor.

But just to dispute this last points for fun, which I recall I already did many months ago on this exact topic or a similar one, but as per usual you seem unable to absorb new information:

Jews follow the Old Testament, Israel even referenced genocide of Amalek in their campaign.

The New Testament doesn’t nullify the Old Testament, it reinterprets it, Christian’s still read and follow most parts of the Old Testament as religious text

In Matthew 5:17, Jesus explicitly says:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

In fact they pro Israel Christian Zionist movement emerges from Dispensationalism, which is predicated on an even closer following of the Old Testament and greater rejection of the idea the New Testament nullifies it. Whereas Christian’s who follow more closely the New Testament actually tend to be more israel critical and argue it’s based on their faith they reject the oppression and violence, which you have been passionately supporting, albeit with very weak arguments that the AI has torn apart repeatedly.

The New Testament itself has multiple violent passages, like Luke 19:27, and tells slaves to obey their masters Ephesians 6:5-9

https://www.npr.org/2010/03/18/124494788/is-the-bible-more-violent-than-the-quran

Edited 4 hours ago by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze sorry for being so dumb. Then Jesus Christ was inherently a warrior who preaches violence. I was deluded about it. Ignore me, but anyway, thanks for the information. 

I'm not sure if you really believe your statements. Maybe yes. Interesting.

[Breakingthewall]

Paul of Tarsus teaches that the Mosaic Law (Old Testament) is no longer binding on Christians because Christ has fulfilled it and, with his sacrifice, opens a new covenant based on faith and grace, not on ritual norms. This is why Christians do not follow things like circumcision, dietary laws, or sacrifices. 📌 In summary: Jesus did not abolish the Old Testament in the sense of destroying it. What he did was surpass it and transform it into a New Covenant. The Old Covenant is understood as preparation, and the New Covenant is understood as fulfillment.

So, the old testament t is "old", the new is "actual".

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

The funniest thing of all is that Israel's biggest haters, Iran, Erdogan, Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamists in general, need Israel. It's a vital necessity.

The Iranian regime relies on Israel; without Israel, it has no legitimacy. Islamism in general draws all its rage from Israel's existence. It's its support. When Israel is a tiny country in the middle of nowhere, yes, it has a conflict with the Palestinians. There, everyone has conflicts with everyone else all the time.

It's all an excuse to legitimize their authoritarian positions against a mortal enemy that occupies a ridiculously small territory in a conflict with a population that really doesn't matter for them