You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
2
TallestSkil 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.
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.
4 days ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
> I don’t believe you’re intelligent, as you openly reject objective truth that cannot be questioned.
It's been questioned for as long as it's been around. Our earliest texts surrounding Christianity as a religious movement (Pauline letters) drop us right in the middle of a bunch of unresolved theological shit flinging, because *everyone* is questioning the true interpretation.
It's still being questioned today. The Christian church is a logistical disaster, and has never known total unity.
I thought we were in the business of *not* blindly believing things without critically evaluating them here.
> You’re digging deeper after being blown the fuck out directly from the source. What was that?
Yes, the temple scene happens. But Jesus still let himself be murdered by jews. Where was the resistance there? What example does that set for your followers if you want them to be warriors who kill their enemies?
You're referring to one (one) instance of momentary, nonlethal force. I'm referring to the Passion.
> Neat, and Christianity expanded massively in that time. Perhaps they fought back intelligently. You know, like the Bible told them to do.
That Christianity spread has nothing to do with the historical pacifism question. Pacifist movements grow all the time.
> "It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration."
What is your explanation for why this quote exists? Was Marcellus lying to people until Christians could acquire power and turn the tables, or was he just wrong?
> lol nah; no one’s under any obligation to allow himself to be killed.
The early Christian martyrs believed they were. Were they mistaken in modeling Jesus?
> 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…
The New Testament doesn't directly answer that question. It only gives you things to infer. My genuine assessment is that it most strongly supports my current conclusion. Jesus and the Epistles lean heavily pacifist when you read them straight, and that's reflected in the early church. Shit, it's reflected in the *modern* church.
If the Bible requires 200 IQ, multilingual fluency, and extensive immersion in abstract exegesis from wildly fluctuating points across history in order to obtain the single "correct" reading, then the so called word of God is not clear. Not to the common man who picks it up, at the least.
An ordinary man who reads it without prior exposure or an explanatory filter will most likely conclude that Jesus forbids the use of lethal force.
> You’ve made your choice.
I still wrestle with it. One of the reasons I get in these discussions is because part of me still wonders if someone can convince me I'm wrong. But every response sincerely fails to do so.
My life is *harder* because I refuse organized religion. Countless doors would open to me to improve my life if I just swallowed the pill like so many do.
But I cannot, because Truth is more important to me than anything in this world. If I genuinely don't believe something is true, I can't force myself to do so. My whole system rejects it.
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.
It's been questioned for as long as it's been around. Our earliest texts surrounding Christianity as a religious movement (Pauline letters) drop us right in the middle of a bunch of unresolved theological shit flinging, because *everyone* is questioning the true interpretation.
It's still being questioned today. The Christian church is a logistical disaster, and has never known total unity.
I thought we were in the business of *not* blindly believing things without critically evaluating them here.
> You’re digging deeper after being blown the fuck out directly from the source. What was that?
Yes, the temple scene happens. But Jesus still let himself be murdered by jews. Where was the resistance there? What example does that set for your followers if you want them to be warriors who kill their enemies?
You're referring to one (one) instance of momentary, nonlethal force. I'm referring to the Passion.
> Neat, and Christianity expanded massively in that time. Perhaps they fought back intelligently. You know, like the Bible told them to do.
That Christianity spread has nothing to do with the historical pacifism question. Pacifist movements grow all the time.
> "It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration."
What is your explanation for why this quote exists? Was Marcellus lying to people until Christians could acquire power and turn the tables, or was he just wrong?
> lol nah; no one’s under any obligation to allow himself to be killed.
The early Christian martyrs believed they were. Were they mistaken in modeling Jesus?
> 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…
The New Testament doesn't directly answer that question. It only gives you things to infer. My genuine assessment is that it most strongly supports my current conclusion. Jesus and the Epistles lean heavily pacifist when you read them straight, and that's reflected in the early church. Shit, it's reflected in the *modern* church.
If the Bible requires 200 IQ, multilingual fluency, and extensive immersion in abstract exegesis from wildly fluctuating points across history in order to obtain the single "correct" reading, then the so called word of God is not clear. Not to the common man who picks it up, at the least.
An ordinary man who reads it without prior exposure or an explanatory filter will most likely conclude that Jesus forbids the use of lethal force.
> You’ve made your choice.
I still wrestle with it. One of the reasons I get in these discussions is because part of me still wonders if someone can convince me I'm wrong. But every response sincerely fails to do so.
My life is *harder* because I refuse organized religion. Countless doors would open to me to improve my life if I just swallowed the pill like so many do.
But I cannot, because Truth is more important to me than anything in this world. If I genuinely don't believe something is true, I can't force myself to do so. My whole system rejects it.