You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
2
Breadpilled on scored.co
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
That's a lot of words to completely miss my point.
I'm not arguing that Christianity has *always* been overwhelmingly pacifist. I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist through rigorous exegesis (although your interpretation is still enforcing *nonviolence,* which is at least soft pacifism as far as I'm concerned.)
I'm arguing that this is not the default reading, and using the earliest large scale Christian movement—spanning over two centuries—as the evidence. Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion. They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
I'll ask you the same questions that the other user refused to answer: Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics? Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position. All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
>That's a lot of words to completely miss my point.
Your point is a proven lie. You were wrong.
>I'm not arguing that Christianity has always been overwhelmingly pacifist.
You are, yeah.
>I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist
There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
>Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion.
Funny how they all cleverly rebelled in those centuries, then, isn’t it.
>They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
Funny how they survived, then, isn’t it.
>Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics?
“WOW I LIED ABOUT YOUR FAITH AND THEREFORE EVERYONE YOU LIKE IS A HYPOCRITE HA HA”
>Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
Because there’s no mutual exclusivity there.
>It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position.
The crux that you completely ignored, on purpose, which you openly admitted to doing.
>All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
> Dismissal without engagement.
> Accusations instead of evidence.
> Reddit-tier condescension.
Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
> There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
Literal falsehood. I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times, was Christian for years, and got baptized as an adult in 2023. I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation, despite starting from a position of *wanting* it to be true.
> Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
4 days ago-2 points(+0/-0/-2Score on mirror)1 child
>Dismissal without engagement.
Yes, you did that. You were proven incorrect. [You refused to engage.](https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ARdRBLUv6/love-your-enemies-never-included/c/4eZBKHfXT3Z) Your point was wrong. Your judaism was noticed.
>Accusations instead of evidence.
Evidence provided. You have no rebuttal to it.
>Reddit-tier condescension.
Precipitation. When you’re the lowest of the low, it’s difficult not to be intrinsically better than you, jew.
>Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
Cool; I don’t care about your fantasies. You lied about the verse on purpose to promote the same jewish propaganda spammed for over 60 years (and only in the last 60 years). Drink bleach.
>Literal falsehood.
Already disproven with direct sources.
>I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times
No one is going to believe you.
>I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation
Enjoy hell, jew. Maybe become literate before deliberating something you didn’t understand.
>Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
[You’re so shit at your job.](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/2-driving-of-the-merchants-from-the-temple-scarsellino.jpg)
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
> (and only in the last 60 years)
Meds. My very first statement makes its argument solely from quotations from 2nd century Christians. I'll ask again: Were they heretics or otherwise incorrect when they exhorted Christians to nonviolence, refusing to use weapons or fight for any reason?
> No one is going to believe you.
Every baseless refusal of my life experience only sharpens my position, because I'm not lying about it.
> Enjoy hell, jew.
You become increasingly unhinged every time you assert this. I have 100% White ancestry. I denounce the talmud and firmly believe we need a real holocaust.
> You’re so shit at your job.
I actually believe you're intelligent despite holding an opposite position to mine, so I'm surprised at this level of sloppy self-owning.
1. Jesus's narrative in the gospels (Mark most conspicuously) still culminates in him letting himself be murdered by jews. That dwarfs the act of driving them out of the temple one time. You're imitating Christ if you let them kill you too, as was the logic of the martyrs. Stephen in Acts, hello?
2. Again, crucially, the earliest Christians didn't interpret the temple scene as permission to exercise violence. They interpreted the opposite and were radical pacifists.
Christianity at the societal level flipped from totally nonviolent rhetoric to "actually violence is okay now that we conveniently hold state power." If you could explain how that somehow squares itself with Christianity being the One, True, Unchanging Religion, without retreating entirely into much later rhetoric, then you could sway me to your position.
4 days ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
>[buzzwords only leftists say]
Neat. Keep proving you’re what I know you are.
>my life experience
OH BOY, ANECDOTES! I GUESS THAT MEANS THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED!
>oy vey I’m white despite saying and doing things only jews do
You reject Christ from knowledge (oh look, I’m using your anecdote!), just like the jews do. You lie about things blatantly written out in the Bible, just like the jews do. Expecting people to think you’re not jewish is a stretch.
> I actually believe you're intelligent despite holding an opposite position to mine
I don’t believe you’re intelligent, as you openly reject objective truth that cannot be questioned.
>sloppy self-owning.
You’re digging deeper after being blown the fuck out directly from the source. What was that?
>They interpreted the opposite and were radical pacifists.
Neat, and Christianity expanded massively in that time. Perhaps they fought back intelligently. You know, like the Bible told them to do.
>Christianity at the societal level flipped from totally nonviolent rhetoric to "actually violence is okay now that we conveniently hold state power."
lol nah; no one’s under any obligation to allow himself to be killed.
>If you could explain
You’ve “read the New Testament multiple times.” You should already know the explanation. Strange that a non-jew (who have no prohibition against reading the New Testament) would have missed this…
>then you could sway me to your position.
You’ve already denounced Christ in the same way jews do and directly refute the explicit original text of the New Testament. You’ve made your choice.
I'm not arguing that Christianity has *always* been overwhelmingly pacifist. I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist through rigorous exegesis (although your interpretation is still enforcing *nonviolence,* which is at least soft pacifism as far as I'm concerned.)
I'm arguing that this is not the default reading, and using the earliest large scale Christian movement—spanning over two centuries—as the evidence. Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion. They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
I'll ask you the same questions that the other user refused to answer: Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics? Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position. All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
Your point is a proven lie. You were wrong.
>I'm not arguing that Christianity has always been overwhelmingly pacifist.
You are, yeah.
>I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist
There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
>Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion.
Funny how they all cleverly rebelled in those centuries, then, isn’t it.
>They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
Funny how they survived, then, isn’t it.
>Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics?
“WOW I LIED ABOUT YOUR FAITH AND THEREFORE EVERYONE YOU LIKE IS A HYPOCRITE HA HA”
>Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
Because there’s no mutual exclusivity there.
>It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position.
The crux that you completely ignored, on purpose, which you openly admitted to doing.
>All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Run along, yid.
> Accusations instead of evidence.
> Reddit-tier condescension.
Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
> There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
Literal falsehood. I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times, was Christian for years, and got baptized as an adult in 2023. I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation, despite starting from a position of *wanting* it to be true.
> Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
Yes, you did that. You were proven incorrect. [You refused to engage.](https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ARdRBLUv6/love-your-enemies-never-included/c/4eZBKHfXT3Z) Your point was wrong. Your judaism was noticed.
>Accusations instead of evidence.
Evidence provided. You have no rebuttal to it.
>Reddit-tier condescension.
Precipitation. When you’re the lowest of the low, it’s difficult not to be intrinsically better than you, jew.
>Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
Cool; I don’t care about your fantasies. You lied about the verse on purpose to promote the same jewish propaganda spammed for over 60 years (and only in the last 60 years). Drink bleach.
>Literal falsehood.
Already disproven with direct sources.
>I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times
No one is going to believe you.
>I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation
Enjoy hell, jew. Maybe become literate before deliberating something you didn’t understand.
>Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
[You’re so shit at your job.](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/2-driving-of-the-merchants-from-the-temple-scarsellino.jpg)
Meds. My very first statement makes its argument solely from quotations from 2nd century Christians. I'll ask again: Were they heretics or otherwise incorrect when they exhorted Christians to nonviolence, refusing to use weapons or fight for any reason?
> No one is going to believe you.
Every baseless refusal of my life experience only sharpens my position, because I'm not lying about it.
> Enjoy hell, jew.
You become increasingly unhinged every time you assert this. I have 100% White ancestry. I denounce the talmud and firmly believe we need a real holocaust.
> You’re so shit at your job.
I actually believe you're intelligent despite holding an opposite position to mine, so I'm surprised at this level of sloppy self-owning.
1. Jesus's narrative in the gospels (Mark most conspicuously) still culminates in him letting himself be murdered by jews. That dwarfs the act of driving them out of the temple one time. You're imitating Christ if you let them kill you too, as was the logic of the martyrs. Stephen in Acts, hello?
2. Again, crucially, the earliest Christians didn't interpret the temple scene as permission to exercise violence. They interpreted the opposite and were radical pacifists.
Christianity at the societal level flipped from totally nonviolent rhetoric to "actually violence is okay now that we conveniently hold state power." If you could explain how that somehow squares itself with Christianity being the One, True, Unchanging Religion, without retreating entirely into much later rhetoric, then you could sway me to your position.
Neat. Keep proving you’re what I know you are.
>my life experience
OH BOY, ANECDOTES! I GUESS THAT MEANS THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED!
>oy vey I’m white despite saying and doing things only jews do
You reject Christ from knowledge (oh look, I’m using your anecdote!), just like the jews do. You lie about things blatantly written out in the Bible, just like the jews do. Expecting people to think you’re not jewish is a stretch.
> I actually believe you're intelligent despite holding an opposite position to mine
I don’t believe you’re intelligent, as you openly reject objective truth that cannot be questioned.
>sloppy self-owning.
You’re digging deeper after being blown the fuck out directly from the source. What was that?
>They interpreted the opposite and were radical pacifists.
Neat, and Christianity expanded massively in that time. Perhaps they fought back intelligently. You know, like the Bible told them to do.
>Christianity at the societal level flipped from totally nonviolent rhetoric to "actually violence is okay now that we conveniently hold state power."
lol nah; no one’s under any obligation to allow himself to be killed.
>If you could explain
You’ve “read the New Testament multiple times.” You should already know the explanation. Strange that a non-jew (who have no prohibition against reading the New Testament) would have missed this…
>then you could sway me to your position.
You’ve already denounced Christ in the same way jews do and directly refute the explicit original text of the New Testament. You’ve made your choice.