Templar crosses. An expression of papal loyalty.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (116)
sorted by:
The first quote is his theory/prediction. So?
Like how jEWs keep kveeching about the hollycast garbage? That garbage?
Like how the Christkillers didn't get along with Christ?
So it's unclear if Skil believes young earth or old earth and speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Another one is the meaning of supersessionism where I haven't found him to enunciate a clear position.
Yes, Skil's rants about being white-genocided without recourse are very reminiscent of those Holocaust exaggerations that have been caught from time to time. I need not remind him of this because it's well-known that I regard an irrational presentation of anti-Semitism as potential evidence of being pro-Semitic (shilling to make one's opponents look bad). The test of the evidence if if the person continues being irrational.
I'm not sure I'd compare his standoffishness to those Jerusalem Jews who called for Jesus's death. He does get along a bit with whitists and with sycophants, and there are probably points where we generally agree; but he is aggressive to root out what he disagrees with and to ridicule it dramatically, possibly for his own psyche's sake.
Incidentally, if you're interested in a number of Biblical points about covenant history, my views are unique and incisive.
Okay, then defend the people who criticize jEWs as hard as you defend jEWs. J-pill normies who don't know and debate them openly where everyone can see.
Or are you afraid of getting JFK'd or Charlie Kirked?
I'm equal opportunity. I affirm balanced criticism of Jews, and I give context to imbalanced criticism of Jews because its imbalance harms the stated intent of providing balanced criticism. People say I defend Jews because I attempted to pursue the mission of elite research board, i.e. getting things right. But I'll criticize anyone who deserves it.
All for it. Pick an objective thesis and start a new post and I'll tell you what I think.
Of nothing. People who project fear to speak may be shilling to get others to say certain words without saying them themselves.
Correct, it's not often and when so it's often colorable as self-serving. A lot of folks here don't believe the Lifeway survey that suggests 1 million Jews accept Jesus as Messiah, but since I know a couple such folks I can characterize them. When you speak of rabbinically accepted Jews who defend Christians, most of what Netanyahu says on the subject is self-serving and that is indeed representative.
I know the various indoctrinations including the Christian one. So (and pardon me for any hiccups in our conversation), when you speak of "the jEWs" as acting problematically, such as by tossing Trump around, that would be a case where the collective inclusion would be read to apply. Now it's not 90% of Jewish kids that are pushing Trump around, it's the Kushners and Witkoff and Netanyahu and other nameable individuals. So, as per my initial comment, I'd counsel you to watch when you use collective language and actually mean nameable individuals and organizations.
The sockpuppets we've had don't claim to be Jewish, they just rabble-rouse like community organizers and fail to contribute meaningfully. So, not really, but if people act like they're shilling for Jews then I ask if they're Jewish and they generally don't answer.
Then talk with people like Agent_86.
Sounds like how jEWs use 'golems' to do their dirty (((work))) for them.
Not seeing any evidence of this. Where's the results?