Judaic Theology Equivalent to Islamic Theology on Calls for Violence? — on The Glazov Gang

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of the critically acclaimed and best-selling, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror. His new book is High Noon For America. He is the host of Frontpage’s television show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com.


In this week’s edition of The Glazov Gang, Dwight Schultz, Rob Nelson and Tommi Trudeau gathered to discuss Lady Gaga, Islamic Violence and Double Standards. During the discussion, a heated verbal brawl broke out over whether Judaic theology can be compared to Islamic theology in terms of calls for violence against unbelievers. Below are all three parts of the three part series.

Part I focused on Lady Gaga, Islamic Violence and Double Standards, Part II hosted a debate on Obama’s Knowledge About Judaism and Part III witnesses the verbal fisticuffs over Judaic Theology Equivalent to Islamic Theology on Calls for Violence?

I:

II:

III:

You can make sure that Jamie Glazov Productions continues to take you where no other media programs dare to go. Help us by clicking here and making a tax deductible contribution today.

  • ygalg

    judaic theology have contribute its part to form islam collaterally. ultra orthodox jews concur that islam contains common share with judiasm. reading koran, you will find similar mind set. although altered to fit the arabian mentality + additions which bible does not contain. the bible sanction genocide against another nations tho not all be weight same way. the fact is there, its problematic. a fanatical religious jews, have use these pages of the bible, to justify the call for genocide of arabs in israel. although arabs not innocent either, sure. but it was so easily demanded, without second thought. they've also wanted to kill jews according to them who are not jews (for not follow the torah)

    I who was a believer, although secular, argued with my IDF commander officer, during reserve service over the fate of israel, I've suggested to commit genocide against arabs "them or us", while I was thinking biblically. he replied that the way I concluded my assessment, is how the nazis did to jews. millions of people just like that be decided to be eliminated for "greater good". thanks to faithfreedom international founded by Ali Sina, I've woke up and understand what have I said was not normal.

    I'm sorry Jamie, but I'm with Rob Nelson on this. Tommy Trudeau said it right "This is what happens when you let religion run free"

    the difference between islam and judiasm, is that islam went beyond, to the point, it made judiasm look innocent.
    necrophilia, cannibalism, although is not sanction yet it does no condemn either. islam is a slippery slope. sanctions too much wrongs, the rest of other wrongs will follow.

    but judiasm has its blood on it hands. if the bible wasn't written history would have written differently no islam nor christianity. but of course there were other "gods" who in their behalf, people were massacred.

    in 21 century, religions need to be where all the primordial fossils are, in the museum.

    • RoguePatriot6

      In the bible Jews did things that were evil and sinful and God never condoned any of it eventhough he acknowledged the fact that people did them and tried to warn them about the future consequences of their actions. Often He did this to no avail because man was and still is, hardheaded and sinful by nature. In fact, he warned us about alot of what we see happening right now.

      Tommi Tribideu is a LOON, plain and simple. I'm not sure if he even beleives half the insane comments he utters. If he were to have it his way he would outlaw anyone practicing any form of faith in God, period. I would also like to point out that some of history's most ruthless and vile dictators were atheists. People who would trample over the rights of others in the name of "tolerance" should be the ones that we "keep in check".

      • ygalg

        Tommi Tribideu has valid points. the reason why christianity and judiasm perceive positively, it cause they're no longer part of regime. at least not christianity. and judaism partly. it does mingling in israel. israel have yet separate religion and state. hence unpleasant consequences. history display vile dictators in vary shapes. theocracy OTOH, has only one shape. its not complimentary for the history of humanity.

        • RoguePatriot6

          "it does mingling in israel. israel have yet separate religion and state. hence unpleasant consequences."

          Let me see if I got this right. You're saying that the issues and problems in Israel rightnow is because they have "no separation of religion and state" and the problems they face has nothing to do with the hordes of Islamists that surround them from all sides and want to exterminate them? Are you saying that this is the root of their problems, "no separation of church and state"?

          • ygalg

            you imagine israel is only a conflict story? its a country with 7 million civilians. there are domestic issues. religion not absent from society polemics.

  • mgoldberg

    ygalg was a secular guy, who understood nothing of the Torah, 'judaism' or what the differences might be, are, and historically have been. He's the secular version of 'kill it all', which is the watered down but virulent killing of the lefts marriage with Islam though he knows not about this.
    The Torah, Judaism, stated that Israel, and Jews were to practice such that they would be a 'light', an example unto all other nations. They would have their own tiny land, and all others would have their own lands, nations, religions, peoples. islam stated- Mohammed stated, after failing as a false prophet, that Islam was to submit all others, everywhere, for all time, and kill them if they refuse. Note the difference? And historically, when Israel was strong, it was not the militarist conquerer of all, everywhere, submitting them. And for 'seculars' like 'ygalg' to pretend that they've read any history, read any Torah, and thought about either in any depth is a joke.

    • ygalg

      what a crock response filled with ad hominem.

      • Kufar Dawg

        UM what ad hominem? Or maybe you referring to his criticism of the holey prophet of islam: MuhamMAD?

  • mgoldberg

    Oh…. one thing. As to necrophilia, cannabalism, murdering babies, all these are the current results of the secular mindset and the marxist mindset that allows any and all moral definitions in it's cause celebrate' to free humanity from
    the 'constraints' of an ethical code from G-d. And for ygalg, to say, that the homicidisms of Islam arrived because the Torah came first is the ludicrous logic of the secular that demands the 'purging' of all thought not in accord with
    it's conclusions. As for the blood on it's hands…. the secular world has allowed some 30 millions of babies to be slaughtered, 110 millions approximately for the 'secular' marxist march to exterminating judeo christian thought. Yes… those who demand 'expunging' Torah thinking, G-d thinking have a considerable lot to answer for- not the least of which is the illogic, lack of history, and general lack of conscience under the proud nose of their 'complaints'.

    • ygalg

      BS for all accounts you mentioned. just proves how religious people so desperate can be, they resort to ad hominem full throttle. to compare your apologetic rants to muslim or a christian, same BS.

      the bible is the prime source which koran derived its material. and anyone who says otherwise; theologically ignorant or intellectual dishonest.

      • ygalg

        secularism not about absent of religion its about arbitrament. and atheism is not ideology nor a policy where you can point out killings happen in its behalf. "you too" fallacy won't acquit your faith from its part in horrors committed against humanity.

        • mgoldberg

          You wrote…" I've suggested to commit genocide against arabs "them or us", while I was thinking biblically"

          You were NOT thinking biblically AT ALL. That was you and your own ugly distortion. And that is why your
          comments were noted- not AD HOMINUM but listed and with the obvious conclusion. Oh. and as for your next nutter comment- the Koran's source is the distortion of Mohammed, who accuses the jews of distorting the Torah, and he correcting it. Just as you did with your own distortion- blaming the Torah, for your own homicidal solution. You by the by, don't debate or argue at all well.

          • ygalg

            continue with ad hominem instead confronting the facts. the bible sanctioned genocide from suckling to elderly. whether it was for particular group of people or time, its immaterial. its there. and such thought influenced the person view.

            if the temple was still present, you were continue to fulfill these horrifying commands which of course you won't see it that way, cause its divine order. would you deny it? come on.

            answer me this; would jews stop to circumcise an eight days old helpless infant and allow him to decide for himself when he grow up?

          • mgoldberg

            Nope, Jews will NOT ever give up the covenant to circumcise their young at 8 days. It is a covenant to educate, teach and raise a child in ethical monotheism. That is the covenant. Not your idiots covenant to have nothing. What a horror.
            As opposed to you and your phony freedom to not have any such covenants. That covenant and all the others gave that society a 90-95% literacy rate when there was no such thing as literacy anywhere for any peoples ever. And the notions of a just society were shown, demonstrated as well as the failures of kings, rulers, committees, etc etc etc. That was the world of justice conceived and desired. As for your bs 'horrifying commands' that's your silly ahistorical, secular distortion field that refuses to actually read any history and see it's totality, it's meaning and it's reality. Thus it figures you'd whine about circumcision being cruel. It would be cruel if it meant nothing but the little new born has to undergo it for nothing: it is not for nothing. It is a covenant to raise a literate child.
            And here's my ad hominem. You are a know nothing whiner, and bloviator and everything. Oh and do read my comments about Marx that I have read in my copies of his books which you obviously never read, nor considered.
            I don't care if the WHO has fully endorsed circumcision for all men to decrease HIV- that's not why I support it- but then the actual history of that covenant and it's meaning, it's actual reality rather than the unlearned, unread one you've swallowed via Marxy seems the only sources you check.
            Oh, and sparky, go check the largest data collections on the incidence of side effects from circumcision- they are in fact exceedingly low, they are and virtually always lower when performed by mohel, rather than physicians.

          • ygalg

            "Jews will NOT ever give up the covenant to circumcise their young at 8 days" thank you that's all that needs to prove my point.

          • intrcptr2

            Whether the Temple stands or not is irrelevant; there are no Canaanites or Jebusites or Hivites or Amalekites around anymore; HaShem's command to execute divine judgment upon them (For having particularly evil societies which practiced such things as child sacrifice and ritual rape) are null and void.

            Circumcision IS NOT in any way equivalent to either God's commands to kill the Amalekites OR Muslim hatred of infidels. God commands Jews to seal their boys into Abraham's covenant. It is idiotic of you to demand that they follow your choice (Which you somehow managed to despite being cut) and abandon God. If you choose to think He does not exist, fine. But you really should stop flaunting your ignorance and your hubris to people who shall never agree with you that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a myth.

          • ygalg

            amputate & risking with possible ending with death or harming the entire organ of 8 days old helpless infant to please imaginary friend that's in itself equivalent to any religious mind set including of a muslim. "I commit cause god command me so", its the modus operande of religious people. the differences, are the orders. if of koran verdicts, were codified in the bible, the result of religious behavior in judiasm or christianity etc would result same. and that's my point.

            I have addressed that. its immaterial to whom genocidal actions taken to in the bible. the fact is there, its a slippery slope. a religious group in israel described the palestinians the Amalekites, not for nothing. there is a call even present day death to arabs by religious group.

            to say the bible does not plays a role in this mind set is naive. denial and mere apologetic.

          • mgoldberg

            Your an idiot… plain and simple. You've harmed your own brain, and insist others harm there's in you own idiots view of the world. Harming organs has no scientific basis, period.
            And of course, in your world nipple rings, nose rings, abortion for all anytime is all just cool freedom of choice. So do it, and get your foreskin back. I can recommend a colleague who is a plastic surgeon who can do this for you. You've addressed nothing. You're a clown. And that is Ad Hominem and entirely accurate. You are a fool who would impose his stupidity upon all others.
            Oh… and calling the palestinians amelikites is the same as calling Nazi's amelikites, but no one will or ever got murdered by that because it's a point of discussion; accurate but totally and completely uninforcible by TORAH law, as well as Israeli law.
            You're a secularist clod who doesn't know arsehairs from celery shreds and you act and think like the two bit whining tyrant you wish to be upon everyone else.
            Meanwhile, while your playing with your doo doo here annoying people, outside in the real world, the Muslims have begun the world wide process of getting blasphemy laws passed by the UN to enforce the tyranny against any discussion of religious values and actions.
            Thus, since Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, who's translator was killed, who's japanese translator was assassinated, who' s italian translator stabbed, norwegian publisher shot, 35 guests at a hotel in turkey were burned to death in an arson attack. The murder of Theo Van gogh, the 19000 jihad slaughters called for worldwide just since 9/11, all in the name of that tyranny. And we can thank imbecile secularists, and leftists for joining and supporting this in the name of washing away any of the values judeo-christian that took thousands of years to develop and use in civil society.
            Your an idiot ygalg; you meow stupidity's like 'to say the bible does not play a role in this mind set is naive' and you are a simple fool, and best and in reality merely a whiner who
            can't see the forest from any trees, who likes to think he's free of some 'burden', that he can't understand, but in reality, is too damned lazy to even address and reason thru like an adult.
            You don't research, you don't reason, you moan and stamp your feet like a child…. go change your own diaper. Like a big boy.

        • reader

          "atheism is not ideology nor a policy where you can point out killings happen in its behalf"

          Not true. For all practical purposes, all explicitly atheist regimes, i.e., regimes founded on atheist (predominantly marxist) core, conducted the most mass atrocities in human history. That's not a coincidence.

          • ygalg

            atheism in itself is not ideology, is correct. its a concept. communism is not about religion. its about social economical status, which predestinate to failure.

            Karl Marx although was an atheist. Marx opinions toward religion were based on Thomas Jefferson ideals, which is not against religion. separation of church and state. the communist Russia misused atheism and Marx as an ideology as did the christians with christianity. the things they've did, christianity have not sanctioned.

            as far as I know, there is no official atheist manifesto. where in religions there is. in form of books (bible, koran etc)

            atheists are vary. and one thing connects them, is that they do not believe in fairy tales.

          • reader

            Congratulations on exposing your supposed "intellect", or the lack thereof. Not one of the cocky atheists jumping on to flex their prowess here managed to produce anything but incoherent clichés that ignorant failures – who we have for our public school system teachers – keep peddling to unsuspecting children.

          • RoguePatriot6

            "atheism in itself is not ideology, is correct. its a concept. communism is not about religion. its about social economical status, which predestinate to failure. "

            In light of your knowledge of this, why do you subscribe to some of it's aspects?

          • ygalg

            which part you imagine I'm affiliated to?

          • mgoldberg

            yes… atheists vary, as do all of the stereotypes of Torah that you plunked down, oh so incorrectly and in fact, falsely. That variance aside, your assessment of Marx is curiously lacking in any meaningful accuracy. For example: Karl Marx himself has stated that “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism,” a sentiment that corresponds almost exactly to the Islamic idea that “peace” means the absence of opposition to Islamic rule.
            So his religious notions were nothing like Jeffersons'. He, Marx was born a christian, his grandpa a jew, and he was surrounded by the insinuations of the jewdespisers and he took on all those trappings and outdid them quite well. In 1845, in 'theDeutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher, Marx wrote that he had proved that the task of abolishing the essence of Jewry is in truth the task of abolishing Jewry in civil society, abolishing the inhumanity of todays practice of life, the summit of which is the money system". Marx regarded the jewish money making activities lay at the very heart of the obnoxious capitalist system. Here is an extract from one of those articles.
            "What is the worldy raison d'être of Jewry? The practical necessity of Jewry is self-interest. "What is the worldly religion of the Jews? Is is the petty haggling of the hawker'. What is his world God?" It is money'. "So in Jewry we recognize a contemporary universal anti-social phenomenon, which has reached it's present pitch through a process of historical development in which the Jews have zealously co-operated. And this evil anti social aspect of Jewry has grown to a stage at which it must collapse". The Jews have emancipated themselves in Jewish fashion. Not only have they mastered the power of money but- with or without the Jews- money has become a world power. The Jews have emancipated themselves by turnig Christians into Jews:. " Money is the most zealous God of Israel and no other God can compete with him. Money debases all human Gods and turns them into goods…the God of the Jews has become secularized and has become a World God."

            He goes on this vicious hater, and eventual destroyer of over 110 millions of people and who's false messianism continues to starve and destroy whole segments of cultures and peoples.

          • intrcptr2

            Actually, that is not accurate, even though the overwhelming majority of atheists are utterly ignorant of this; http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanisthttp://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist

            Communist Russia never existed, it was a socialist state meant to further the transition to Communism. But she did not misuse ANY of Marx or his theories; they followed Lenin's fuller expounding of them perfectly.
            It failed, as any such government must, because it absolutely denied basic human nature (Whic only the Bible accurately depicts and accounts for). Your understanding of your own religion is woeful. I would kindly suggest you go back to Genesis and start over.

        • RoguePatriot6

          "you too" fallacy won't acquit your faith from its part in horrors committed against humanity."

          If I rob a bank and say falsely claim that you put me up to it, does that make you a bank robber? No it makes me liar and a thief.
          The same goes for those who use the teachings of Jesus Christ to justify their base deeds. Jesus Christ wasn't a liar, theif or mass murderer, He was who He was and so shall He be forevermore. Christianity that Jesus spoke of commited no attrocity against humanity. Liars, thieves and those who cared nothing about the gospel and wanted world conquest did.

          • ygalg

            you assuming from stand point jesus was real. there is no verification that's the case. he is a myth just as moses is and probably Muhammad as well. true that of atrocities done by christians throughout history has nothing to do with the NT however NT is not innocent either. it contains uncomplimentary assertions over jews. and that is a slippery slope.

          • RoguePatriot6

            "it contains uncomplimentary assertions over Jews. and that is a slippery slope."

            It contains some "uncomplimentary assertions" over anybody that placed their authority over that of Jesus Christ. Jesus nor the New Testament teachings condemned all Jews. It rebuked the Jews that refused to acknowledge the prophecies all throughout the Old Testament of His coming to earth and his authority as the Son of God. This didn't include just Jews, it included all.

            As far as there being "no verification" that Jesus existed:
            Flavius Josephus, a Jewish Historian wrote about Him.
            Tacitus a Roman historian wrote about Him
            Thallus Circa AD 52, Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. In it contained his account of the eclipse that took place on the 6th hour of His crucifiction.
            I'm sure there are probably many more but these are a few.
            Even Muslims acknowledge His existence. They may not put much stock in His doctrine but they believe He existed.

  • Mo_

    I only got through about 3 minutes of the first section. This constant talking over each other and shouting has rendered the show unwatchable to me.

    But I do appreciate Jamie's jumping in to quash that nonsense about Christians bombing abortion clinics. I am sick to death of this being trotted out as though it's a fact that 1) it happens on a regular basis and 2) that the Bible ANYWHERE commands or condones such behavior.

    • Kufar Dawg

      I've heard the same ridiculous BS from amoral libtards who defend islamofascism. I'll bet the sum total of the number of dead from abortion bombings and murders is less than a dozen, while millions have been killed in the name of islam in the 20th and 21st centuries (mostly Hindus, Sikhs and Christians).

  • Western Spirit

    it was prophesied in the OT that God would call his people by a different name, a people who had never known him or sought him. And it also prophesied God was gong to make the Jewish people jealous of another people who would be God’s people, too. Those people were not muslims.

    I believe the people referred to are the true Christians who follow Christ’s teachings. like George Washington for instance, who, as a true Christian refused power to retire to his home because that is what he valued.

    His stepdaughter observed that Washington was often in prayer. a foolish thing to do, praying to an absentee landlord, but prayer was perfectly in keeping with worship of the Christian God. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the moon God of Islam, but a Christian and Jewish God was whom Washington believed in and sought.

    So all religions are not superfluous, or dangerous, but absolutely necessary in forming moral people to lead us. Otherwise if the blind lead the blind we’ll all fall into the ditch where we are presently headed.

  • geula

    Does anyone know at which point in History the Rabbis modified the allowance to kill gentiles or other ( even Jewish/Israelite ) enemies in genocidal fashion? An Oral Law – that is, interpretation of the ancient biblical text, codified it seems after the return from Babylon, around 500 BC , just to round it up – was already known at the time of Jesus/The Second Temple, later codified in the Mishna and the Talmud for a few more centuries. De facto, once the Judeans were deprived of statehood, after 70 AD, they no longer had the political ability to execute anyone. Was the change, then,merely historical, or was it preceded or accompanied by rabbinical interpretational injunctions?

    • mgoldberg

      Your assertion about the allowance to kill gentiles is peculiar. They didn't but war against the seven nations, and as for gentiles and others, it was those who were allowed their ways in Israel, in Judea, who historically swayed the jews and Israel. As for deaths, it was considered at the time of the sanhedrin, that if more than one person was put to death for executable crimes, in the 70 yr period, then they considered something very wrong with themselves and their society. Read many history's of those ancient time.

      • geula

        the Sanhedrin fact is interesting, and it shows Judaism being shaped by compassion. It does fall,though, in a historic period when the Land of Israel was occupied by foreign empires. There was no longer a Kingdom ruled by a Judean ( or Jewish, if you wish ) king. The Sanhedrin simply could not give the order to exterminate another people. But the Hebrew Bible does abound in extreme injunctions:

        "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations…then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1 "…do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you…" Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV. 1

        My question still remains, knowing that many of the Torah's capital penalties ( stoning one's son if he disrespected his father, stoning adulterers, burning witches and false prophets ) were relinquished at some point. Was the commandment to smite other populations on the Land of Israel a matter of historical necessity or a Talmudic decision made in exile by the Rabbis?

        • ygalg

          are you referring to actual history or the bible?

        • mgoldberg

          It was hardly ever used, from the beginning. That was the point. From the beginning the idea of justice, of education, meant that getting away from the 'duties' of capital execution were paramount and that system of justice, of learning, and avoiding at all costs the mandates was clearly stated amongst commentators upon those ancient times. That the culture was not known for it's executions at all is historically the fact- and the reality of the theology and culture.

        • Kufar Dawg

          The only people they were commanded to smite were those who were at war w/them. In all probability if they had lost, they would've suffered the same fate as those they defeated.

        • cjk

          The peoples they were commanded to wipe out in the TORAH were SPECIFIC to a time and place, period end of story. There are no more commands to wipe out any other people in the BIBLE. As far as the Talmud goes, anything is possible in that evil and Satanically inspired literature.

  • mgoldberg

    Secularism you say, is arbitrament?? The settling of a dispute?? You didn't evidence any knowledge whatsoever about Jewish History, Torah, or it's history and then you did the 3rd rate, silly
    drawing of a bullseye on the tree after you shot the arrow…. so wherever it landed you called it a bullseye.
    Silly, and worse.
    As for your secularism which apparently brought you this superb reasoning style- 'Secularism' is the idea, that there is no G-d, and therefore no moral truth above humanity. This makes morality a consensus opinion, which makes morals relative, and if some values are a product of opinion, then one cannot rightly say some are better than others, the most we could say is we favor some over others. And cultural relativism is the result, as it is now, where we are lead to an inability to judge who's values are better or worse, not because there aren't object standards but because we dare not specify any objective values based on 'truth's.
    So you as an example, make absurd, historically incorrect assertions that the Koran is mostly sourced from the Torah, so the torah is the source of the muslims homicidism. Which is utterly false as an assertion and as logical display of either of their history's. And that is how secularists tend to use their 'freedom'.

    • ygalg

      what I mean by it, its compromise "live and let live". separation of religion and state assures freedom of expression, belief etc… that's what secularism is. people confusing secularism with atheism. two separate concepts.

      koran heavily plagiarized the bible and the talmud, compare to other sources from other religions which also influence the authors of koran.

      • mgoldberg

        I don't believe secularism in any way encourages a live and let live philosophy- but I support that one if that's what you say you wish for. And the separation of religion and state is also quite wholesome but except when it's really separating religion from people. Read Jefferson's letter to the anabaptists in 1796, and see what he actually wanted. He merely wanted no ruling church. And if you want to see the results of Judism upon the US, read G Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789. It is a thing of beauty- for all.

        Yes- the koran plagiarized the bible, but did so hideously. And I can concretize exactly what I mean by that and provide innumerable hard dollar and cents examples and analysis to show that it's the diametric opposite of the Torah.

  • Beatrix

    The Bible is a religious book, but it is also the history of a people living in a primitive time. (That's what God had to work with). No question that these people were violent and that they sometimes used their religion as an excuse for conquest. But give them credit—they were developed enough to move from worshiping statues and sacrificing humans to a belief in God.

    Both Christianity and Islam stem from Judaism. Christians acknowledge this. If Muslims ever did, it might be the beginning of peace, even though both Christians and Muslims think they're going to supplant Judaism.

    Muslims today seem like the Jews of 3 or 4,000 years ago. The Jews were excited by their new understanding of God. The Muslims are excited by the world's need for oil.

    • ygalg

      sorry to bust your bubble, history able to verify balaam to be true figure, thanks to archaeology made in Jordan. and what the bible asserts about him, is half truth, half fantasy. the bible is not history book. its belong to mythology. like Veda of Hinduism, greek mythology etc.

      • ygalg

        "The Muslims are excited by the world's need for oil." with that they hold the western world hostage and probably with it demolish it.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Just because a psychopathic, narcissistic, pedophile, caravan raider and warlord in the Saudi Arabian peninsula states his religion is "Abrahamic" doesn't make it so. His only reason for doing so was to co-opt Christianity and Judaism. The muslimes don't hold the bible as holy, as they consider it to have been superseded by the unholy quran. If Manson or L. Ron Hubbard were to state their religions were Abrahamic would that make it so?

  • Western Spirit

    should the clay tell the master clay maker his business? first the jews possessed the land given to them by the creator
    and then the christian's possessed this land.

    surely the creator possesses the land he created and he can give it to whom he chooses.

  • Western Spirit

    calling christanity replacement theology is a symptom of the jealousy of the jewish people,foretold by the bible, that there would be another people, other than jews, who would become Gods people, too.

    so the bible is much more than a history book.