You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
-2
TallestSkil on scored.co
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
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.
Thanks, just don’t post jewish hoaxes at all next time and this won’t happen to you.
# ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλ’ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα σου, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·
Roast in hell, apostate.
> Tries to frame opponent as "giving up" when he finally disengages from the endless slew of vitriol and retardation.
They must have loved you in debate club.