You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
-1
TallestSkil on scored.co
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.
4 days ago-2 points(+0/-0/-2Score on mirror)1 child
> I thought we were in the business of not blindly believing things
You don’t need to. The text is right there. Your next line is “Jesus wasn’t actually crucified; he was just pinched really hard. You can’t tell otherwise from the text!”
> Where was the resistance there?
And you wonder why I refuse to believe you’ve read the New Testament even once.
> Pacifist movements grow all the time.
Not in the face of active genocide. Try again with something believable.
> What is your explanation for why this quote exists?
Like you, he didn’t read the Bible.
> The early Christian martyrs believed they were. Were they mistaken in modeling Jesus?
Read before replying. I tire of this behavior.
> The New Testament doesn't directly answer that question.
Maybe if you’d read it you wouldn’t say things like this.
>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.
Good thing it doesn’t, then, huh.
>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.
Solipsism is unbecoming.
> part of me still wonders if someone can convince me I'm wrong. But every response sincerely fails to do so.
Something believable, please.
>My life is harder because I refuse organized religion.
*“OY VEY, HOW DEY POISECUTE ME SO!”*
Something. Believable. Please.
>Countless doors would open to me to improve my life if I just swallowed the pill like so many do.
Objective falsehood. Now I know you’re a jewish paid shill.
>But I cannot, because Truth is more important to me than anything in this world.
> Your next line is “Jesus wasn’t actually crucified; he was just pinched really hard. You can’t tell otherwise from the text!”
jesse what the fuck are you talking about
> And you wonder why I refuse to believe you’ve read the New Testament even once.
Series of events:
Jesus is arrested. He rebukes Peter for trying to defend him and heals the soldier Peter wounded.
He refuses to advocate for himself before Pilate or Herod.
He is crucified. He never resists this fate despite claiming he had the ability to do so at any time by calling down legions of angels.
I'm starting to think you're the one who never read it.
> Not in the face of active genocide. Try again with something believable.
These early Christians weren't being systemically genocided. Even if they had been, you have no historical evidence that they were preserving themselves through violent resistance.
> Like you, he didn’t read the Bible.
"The church fathers didn't read the Bible."
Thank you for finally admitting the absurdity of your position.
> Good thing it doesn’t, then, huh.
It does in order to reach your conclusion.
That's why I can simply say "Do not resist an evil person 🤭" and you immediately fly into a seething wall of text sperging out over the original Greek.
You ape. You goddamn buffoon.
> Wordswordswords. Ad hominem.
You keep flip flopping between claiming I haven't read the New Testament and claiming that I reject Christ from knowledge. Make up your mind.
> I tire
You and me both.
Maybe I overestimated you after all. As I've said, I'm completely open to sincere debate, but if you aren't capable of defending your position beyond endlessly repeating "Nuh uh you dumb idiot!" then you're not worth any more of my time.
2 days ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
>[incapable of abstraction]
My man, please. Follow the context clues.
> I'm starting to think you're the one who never read it.
Oof, yikes. I guess you missed the part that distinguishes Jesus from the rest of humanity.
> These early Christians weren't being systemically genocided.
Amazing. I bet you deny white genocide today, too.
> Thank you for finally admitting the absurdity of your position.
Bible says the opposite of what he said. He didn’t read it, you’re lying about what he said (most likely), or you’re removing the context to make your (already disproven) wider point.
> you immediately fly into a seething wall of text sperging out over the original Greek.
Translation: “NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN’T USE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO PROVE THAT IM LYING ABOUT THE STATEMENT IN ORDER TO GET CHRISTIANS TO KILL THEMSELVES”
> Wordswordswords. Ad hominem.
Thanks for admitting you’re incapable of refuting what I said.
> You keep flip flopping
“I’ve read the New Testament! See, look: [opposite of what it says]. YOU are flip-flopping, not me!”
> I'm completely open to sincere debate
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN’T USE ***THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE DOCUMENT*** TO PROVE ME WRONG
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.
You don’t need to. The text is right there. Your next line is “Jesus wasn’t actually crucified; he was just pinched really hard. You can’t tell otherwise from the text!”
> Where was the resistance there?
And you wonder why I refuse to believe you’ve read the New Testament even once.
> Pacifist movements grow all the time.
Not in the face of active genocide. Try again with something believable.
> What is your explanation for why this quote exists?
Like you, he didn’t read the Bible.
> The early Christian martyrs believed they were. Were they mistaken in modeling Jesus?
Read before replying. I tire of this behavior.
> The New Testament doesn't directly answer that question.
Maybe if you’d read it you wouldn’t say things like this.
>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.
Good thing it doesn’t, then, huh.
>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.
Solipsism is unbecoming.
> part of me still wonders if someone can convince me I'm wrong. But every response sincerely fails to do so.
Something believable, please.
>My life is harder because I refuse organized religion.
*“OY VEY, HOW DEY POISECUTE ME SO!”*
Something. Believable. Please.
>Countless doors would open to me to improve my life if I just swallowed the pill like so many do.
Objective falsehood. Now I know you’re a jewish paid shill.
>But I cannot, because Truth is more important to me than anything in this world.
lol
> believe
And this is why the lol.
jesse what the fuck are you talking about
> And you wonder why I refuse to believe you’ve read the New Testament even once.
Series of events:
Jesus is arrested. He rebukes Peter for trying to defend him and heals the soldier Peter wounded.
He refuses to advocate for himself before Pilate or Herod.
He is crucified. He never resists this fate despite claiming he had the ability to do so at any time by calling down legions of angels.
I'm starting to think you're the one who never read it.
> Not in the face of active genocide. Try again with something believable.
These early Christians weren't being systemically genocided. Even if they had been, you have no historical evidence that they were preserving themselves through violent resistance.
> Like you, he didn’t read the Bible.
"The church fathers didn't read the Bible."
Thank you for finally admitting the absurdity of your position.
> Good thing it doesn’t, then, huh.
It does in order to reach your conclusion.
That's why I can simply say "Do not resist an evil person 🤭" and you immediately fly into a seething wall of text sperging out over the original Greek.
You ape. You goddamn buffoon.
> Wordswordswords. Ad hominem.
You keep flip flopping between claiming I haven't read the New Testament and claiming that I reject Christ from knowledge. Make up your mind.
> I tire
You and me both.
Maybe I overestimated you after all. As I've said, I'm completely open to sincere debate, but if you aren't capable of defending your position beyond endlessly repeating "Nuh uh you dumb idiot!" then you're not worth any more of my time.
My man, please. Follow the context clues.
> I'm starting to think you're the one who never read it.
Oof, yikes. I guess you missed the part that distinguishes Jesus from the rest of humanity.
> These early Christians weren't being systemically genocided.
Amazing. I bet you deny white genocide today, too.
> Thank you for finally admitting the absurdity of your position.
Bible says the opposite of what he said. He didn’t read it, you’re lying about what he said (most likely), or you’re removing the context to make your (already disproven) wider point.
> you immediately fly into a seething wall of text sperging out over the original Greek.
Translation: “NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN’T USE THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO PROVE THAT IM LYING ABOUT THE STATEMENT IN ORDER TO GET CHRISTIANS TO KILL THEMSELVES”
> Wordswordswords. Ad hominem.
Thanks for admitting you’re incapable of refuting what I said.
> You keep flip flopping
“I’ve read the New Testament! See, look: [opposite of what it says]. YOU are flip-flopping, not me!”
> I'm completely open to sincere debate
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN’T USE ***THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE DOCUMENT*** TO PROVE ME WRONG
>YOU’RE FLIP FLOPPING
Reply again, jew.