You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
-2
Breadpilled on scored.co
1 day ago-2 points(+0/-0/-2Score on mirror)1 child
> finally got you to actually post the quotes you’ve been claiming to reference this whole time
These were the quotes I put in the very first message you replied to, you fucking retard. You've still yet to properly address them btw.
You accused me of misrepresenting the context of these quotes (and didn't look up the context for yourself, because you're a bitch whose entire fragile ego scaffolding is at risk if you do,) so I'll go a step further and hammer the point by doing it for you...
*Hyppolutus*
From the *Apostolic Tradition, early 3rd Century.* While outlining baptismal requirements, he is articulating that soldiers are not to be permitted entry to the church unless they absolutely refuse to kill, even if their state calling sanctions it. Dogmatic pacifism is table stakes.
*Tertullian*
*De Corona, early 3rd Century.* Tertullian is arguing that Christians are not permitted to enlist in military service at all, because pacifism is dogma. He cites Christ disarming Peter as bibilical exhortation to this end.
*Justin Martyr*
*First Apology, mid-2nd Century.* Justin is writing to Roman authorities to explain Christian ethics. He is contrasting pre-Christian violence with post-Christian nonviolence as evidence of moral reform.
*Irenaeus*
*Against Heresies, late 2nd Century.* Ireneaus is referencing Isaiah 2:4, highlighting how proper Christian behavior is manifesting prophecy as modern practice:
> *He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.*
***Marcellus***
*Acta Marcelli, late 3rd Century.*
Very ironic that you chose to single out this quote, because the context surrounding it utterly collapses whatever anti-pacifistic subtext you're trying to insinuate.
Marcellus was a Roman centurion who was executed in 298 CE specifically for publicly renouncing military service on the grounds of Christian doctrine. This quote is him claiming to authorities that his faith *literally* forbids him from committing violence of any kind, even as a soldier, and he was willing to die for that belief. Which he did.
*Martin*
*Life of Martin, late 4th Century.*
Martin was a Roman soldier prior to conversion. In the account of his life, it is described that he was discharged from the military for refusing to participate in combat on religious grounds. This was *post-Constantine,* showing continuity of the pacifistic ethos of Christianity.
*Clement*
*Paedagogus, late 2nd Century*
The text is written as a moral guide for everyday Christian life. He is describing absolute nonviolence even in the face of injustice as a basic tenant of Christian ethics.
These are your forebears in the faith. ALL of these men were massively influential to the earliest iteration of Christianity. There isn't a *single* foundational figure from this time period claiming violence is okay, they *all* say the opposite. Your "unquestionable" interpretation doesn't exist *anywhere* in the public record until much, much later.
I don't need to explain the implications of that; you're already aware, which is why you won't respond with integrity to any of this. So go ahead and mash on your keyboard again, you small, delusional fanatic. All caps. Bold. C'mon.
1 day ago-2 points(+0/-0/-2Score on mirror)1 child
> Puts words in my mouth.
> Proves my point by refusing to address the information.
God I would love to fuck you up in an actual live debate format. Not so easy to retreat from plain historical facts when the medium moves away from an anonymous text board where your position is propped up solely by popular opinion.
>Proves my point by refusing to address the information.
Directly addressed it immediately.
>God I would love to fuck you up in an actual live debate format.
You’d be removed from the facility for blatantly lying about information anyone can look up.
>Not so easy to retreat from plain historical facts
The ones that you posted which disprove your own claims, you mean?
>where your position is propped up solely by popular opinion.
*The jew cries out in pain as it strikes you.* Meanwhile, for the last two millennia before the jewish conquest of the world, there’s no evidence whatsoever for your claims.
These were the quotes I put in the very first message you replied to, you fucking retard. You've still yet to properly address them btw.
You accused me of misrepresenting the context of these quotes (and didn't look up the context for yourself, because you're a bitch whose entire fragile ego scaffolding is at risk if you do,) so I'll go a step further and hammer the point by doing it for you...
*Hyppolutus*
From the *Apostolic Tradition, early 3rd Century.* While outlining baptismal requirements, he is articulating that soldiers are not to be permitted entry to the church unless they absolutely refuse to kill, even if their state calling sanctions it. Dogmatic pacifism is table stakes.
*Tertullian*
*De Corona, early 3rd Century.* Tertullian is arguing that Christians are not permitted to enlist in military service at all, because pacifism is dogma. He cites Christ disarming Peter as bibilical exhortation to this end.
*Justin Martyr*
*First Apology, mid-2nd Century.* Justin is writing to Roman authorities to explain Christian ethics. He is contrasting pre-Christian violence with post-Christian nonviolence as evidence of moral reform.
*Irenaeus*
*Against Heresies, late 2nd Century.* Ireneaus is referencing Isaiah 2:4, highlighting how proper Christian behavior is manifesting prophecy as modern practice:
> *He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.*
***Marcellus***
*Acta Marcelli, late 3rd Century.*
Very ironic that you chose to single out this quote, because the context surrounding it utterly collapses whatever anti-pacifistic subtext you're trying to insinuate.
Marcellus was a Roman centurion who was executed in 298 CE specifically for publicly renouncing military service on the grounds of Christian doctrine. This quote is him claiming to authorities that his faith *literally* forbids him from committing violence of any kind, even as a soldier, and he was willing to die for that belief. Which he did.
*Martin*
*Life of Martin, late 4th Century.*
Martin was a Roman soldier prior to conversion. In the account of his life, it is described that he was discharged from the military for refusing to participate in combat on religious grounds. This was *post-Constantine,* showing continuity of the pacifistic ethos of Christianity.
*Clement*
*Paedagogus, late 2nd Century*
The text is written as a moral guide for everyday Christian life. He is describing absolute nonviolence even in the face of injustice as a basic tenant of Christian ethics.
These are your forebears in the faith. ALL of these men were massively influential to the earliest iteration of Christianity. There isn't a *single* foundational figure from this time period claiming violence is okay, they *all* say the opposite. Your "unquestionable" interpretation doesn't exist *anywhere* in the public record until much, much later.
I don't need to explain the implications of that; you're already aware, which is why you won't respond with integrity to any of this. So go ahead and mash on your keyboard again, you small, delusional fanatic. All caps. Bold. C'mon.
Thanks; you’ve conceded the point and admitted Christians are under no obligation to commit suicide. Run along, yid.
> Proves my point by refusing to address the information.
God I would love to fuck you up in an actual live debate format. Not so easy to retreat from plain historical facts when the medium moves away from an anonymous text board where your position is propped up solely by popular opinion.
Irony.
>Proves my point by refusing to address the information.
Directly addressed it immediately.
>God I would love to fuck you up in an actual live debate format.
You’d be removed from the facility for blatantly lying about information anyone can look up.
>Not so easy to retreat from plain historical facts
The ones that you posted which disprove your own claims, you mean?
>where your position is propped up solely by popular opinion.
*The jew cries out in pain as it strikes you.* Meanwhile, for the last two millennia before the jewish conquest of the world, there’s no evidence whatsoever for your claims.
Or be a bitch and run away.
Also, Merry Christmas. 😊