>You seem to interpret the text as "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled, but I don't affirm the law".
Uhh, yeah chief, considering his words immediately after, e.g. :
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all
Tell me, does he go on to affirm the law after he says he fulfilled it?
InB4MassiveCope
>You were only joking, I know.
Upvote for divine spark of self-awareness
Fulfill != “affirm”
Im not inclined to spend the time pointing out and dealing with every other inaccuracy or unjustified assumption in your comment when I’ve found such a blatant error in the first 0.00005% of its contents.
It sounds like you’re agreeing with what I said without explicitly indicating so.
Confirm/Deny:
Jesus will never command his faithful to kill a baby.
Not involving commands for his faithful to murder babies. You?
Have you considered that your namecalling and baiting is keeping me from doing other things like reading your material?
First of all: lmfao
Second of all: im not your toddler retard, lol
Third of all: what even?
So if you want me to look in the Scriptures for an answer to the question as I best interpret it, "ingenuously", you'll need to wait for such an answer.
Nah nigga, Jesus would never call for genocide, you’re fucked if you need to check your notes on that one.
Your ideas about what the earliest Christians believed are easily rejected by evidence and highly imaginative, but at least you're humoring me by trying to come down on a belief.
Again, lmao. You still don’t seem to understand that Gnostic means simply seeker of truth, someone open to changing their mind when they find something closer to the truth as they walk the Way. It’s funny how totally alien this is to you, though I suppose it makes sense, as your entire identity is based on tying yourself to a dead ideology. A dying soul in a dying body chained to a dead organization via dead oaths. Say hi to Scott for me! (And again, that’s just sarcasm, im being entirely ingenuous).
Edit) and obviously a bit hyperbolic for rhetorical effect - you strike me as a good guy in general, im sure you strive for beyond 51% service to others and achieve much of what you set out to do. Don’t take the above as me saying “grrrrr! You’re bound for Hell if you don’t repeat after me!!!!!”, that’s far more your guys’s thing than mine anyway. It’s just a pretty big deal imo if “your” Jesus tells you genocide is ever right/good/to be carried out by individuals. Like if I went to your church, I’d stop coming when I found that out about you.
Lmfao
You invented an ambiguity that isn’t even there. You’re such a disingenuous fag.
The verse is explicitly “God” calling for genocide.
That’s why you have such trouble accepting that Jesus would never call for genocide. Because his Father isn’t yahweh sabaoth, yaldabaoth, demiurge and petty god of war for a tribe of miscreants. Just as the earliest Christians believed before they were wiped out by the Catholic pedocracy.
Simple question:
Do you think there is any point in time or geography, across all of human history, where Jesus would tell you “you may” kill a baby in war?
Yes or No. Binary proposition.
Edit) also, you got anything to back up that horseshit argument about “kill every last one of them” doesn’t actually mean kill every last one of them, it means Heaven forbid, they may, only in super extreme circumstances like a Hamas terrorist wearing babies as bodyarmor while genociding innocent Chosen Ones - because frankly that sounds like an utter fucking bullshit cope
Except im obviously being sarcastic, while you’re obviously willfully misinterpreting the text. Which is fucking hilarious coming from the YEC who quotes from the flat earth espousing Bible.
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/16ZqiBusID/petition-to-make-cconspiracies-i/c
Stay on Q.
Lmao, thanks for getting me to dig that shit up
You’ll have to ask the mods who interpreted it that way for 4+ years, since evidentially you’re unable to hear what the users are telling you about how the rule was used
It’s so obviously a joke that to deny such a readily apparent fact one would literally have to be a disingenuous cock-sucker
Just assume everything I post is a “free for all” by default
literally no evidence that these bans were for “namecalling”
Any luck finding evidence to support your claim that “namecalling” resulted in blanket removals before you became the mod?
(See prior comment in chain)
“Kill all the women and babies” is indiscriminate war you disingenuous faggot.
So he didn’t remove people namecalling eachother? Glad we agree that your new rule is out of left field then.
Well I never denied that “kill yourself” was removed as harassment. We’re talking about shit like calling people faggots and kikes and hollow earthers.
No, Clem consistently approved comments with name calling. Infact, that was his last act/comment on the site, to TallestSkil. Oh, and don’t be disingenuous and conflate name calling with wishing death.
6,000,000 words and none of them were “you’re right, my bad, I shouldn’t be such a disingenuous faggot.”
Oh well, maybe sometime in the next 5 years hey?
Because he only earned the label “disingenuous faggot” when he started arguing like one, by willfully misinterpreting the text so he could slur me multiple times
Mod logs are public.
Yes, and you’re the one claiming they show something
If you “actually” “studied” it, then the evidence for your claim should be at your fingertips. You realize it’s not possible to “prove” a negative right? You’re the one suggesting “that’s how it’s always been”, you’re the only one between the two of us who could find evidence to support your claim
FOH lmao x (every instance of pilpul)