the New Testament has anti-Jewish material baked into its foundation — not footnotes, the core narrative. Collective guilt for the death of Jesus pinned on the Jewish people across all generations (1). Replacement theology — the claim that Jews are no longer God's people and the church has taken their place (2). Jews portrayed throughout the gospels as betrayers, liars, children of the devil (3). This is the text itself, not a minority reading. I judge the doctrine, not the individual Christian. Today's generation can be kind, and often is. But people change, cultures change, politics change — the text does not. It sits there waiting for whoever decides to actually follow it. That is exactly why the text is the subject worth discussing, not the mood of the current generation. (1) Collective guilt: Matthew 27:25 — "And all the people answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" Matthew 23:35-36 — "that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah... Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 — "the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind... But wrath has come upon them at last!" See also: Matthew 23:31-32; Acts 7:51-52. (2) Replacement theology: Matthew 21:43 — "the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits." Galatians 4:30 — "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." (Paul's own allegory: the "slave woman" = the Sinai covenant.) Hebrews 8:13 — "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." See also: Galatians 6:16; Philippians 3:3; Hebrews 10:9. (3) Betrayers, liars, children of the devil: John 8:44 — "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires... he is a liar and the father of lies."

Genuine question. Why does this slimy POS Hegseth keep mispronouncing the Persian Gulf and calling it Arabian gulf. Does he not have an education or is he just retarded?

Reza Pahlavi exposes the hypocrisy of European media. 4-minutes must-watch video: https://youtu.be/m_S_1Q5bxB4?is=B1cdJvlz3gMiI0ca

On April 1st, 2001, the Netherlands became the first nation in human history to legalize same-sex marriage. Years later, in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court likewise declared marriage a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. President Barack Obama, in a speech at the Rose Garden, declared "love is love" as he celebrated the ruling as "a victory for America." And most Americans seem to agree. A gallop poll suggests that approximately 88% of democrats and nearly 50% of Republicans support gay marriage. So it seems the debate is over. But should it be? In 2007, an Assumptionist priest by the name of Barry Bercier wrote in his book, Skies of Babylon, that if traditional marriage were re-defined to include same sex couples, "the result would be nothing less than the end of the world of man." Sound dramatic? Well -- what is marriage? If marriage were merely a proclamation of love, and if the fundamental purpose of marriage were to reward people who love each other, then gay marriage should be legal. But society does not give certain legal rights, financial benefits and tax breaks to people simply because they fall in love. At least, until two decades ago, that's not how it worked. Barry Bercier defines marriage as "the public and legal recognition of the pre-political duality of the sexes and the significance of the duality for human beings and the social and political order." In other words, marriage -- traditional marriage as it existed across every civilization for nearly all of human history, is the recognition of a unique relationship that pre-exists law and human constructs. That is, the institution of marriage - from Mesopotamia, to Egypt, China, Rome and every Western nation until 2001 -- recognized the duality of the sexes through law because the duality is the nucleus from which life emerges. The relationship between male and female -- man and woman -- whether you are gay, straight, black, white, bisexual, asexual, rich or poor, is our beginning; our source. For every human being, the duality of the sexes is our 'sine qua non' -- without it, life would not exist.