Do you love your enemies?

[Kalarion]

Gnostic, not agnostic. I believe in the metaphysical.

Well, I'll say a prayer for your salvation tonight.

[Red7]

Weird obsession with foreskin

foreskin has strategic importance

im not joking. circumsion damages childs brain and make its inable to operate mind to machine interface of alien craft as adult.
btw vagina brain is inable to do that by default

[BobT]

Weird obsession with foreskin

circumsion damages childs brain and make its inable to operate mind to machine interface of alien craft as adult.

Well, I've seen a lot of arguments against circumcision (and agree with most of them), but that's certainly a new one to add to the list..

[Red7]

I hope my enemies fart themselves to death personally.

sounds like hate speech against gay ppl

[Red7]

Weird obsession with foreskin

circumsion damages childs brain and make its inable to operate mind to machine interface of alien craft as adult.

Well, I've seen a lot of arguments against circumcision (and agree with most of them), but that's certainly a new one to add to the list..

this is only one that matters.

[OnTilt]

Yep, but how can anyone say, definitively, they were righteously executed when the standard is now that only people without sin can condemn another to death for a sin?
You can chalk up Jesus sparing the prostitute up to Godlike insight into her true character, but in the history of all those Christian countries there would have potentially been many people like that woman he spared?

That's exactly what we're saying is not the case. Go read Romans. The State still wields the sword to serve justice and punish the wicked. Just because Jesus spared that specific woman, that specific time, does not mean that communal punishment is suddenly off the table. Yes, there were potentially many people that Jesus would have spared, and many more that were never punished who should have been. Mankind and all its institutions are fallible, we try our best anyway.

[Xenich]

That is not far off what you did. In fact I'm pretty sure that would be more than simply posting seemingly random scriptures after only coming up with excuses as to why it's not something you can address, because I am such a pleb or whatever.

1. I first explained that it was a complex topic, and I was not prepared to answer it to the level of scrutiny you had.
2. I tried to further explain this by giving you an example of the complexity of the issue, but linking you the verses that are often used to explain it.
3. In that, I also provided you a summary that a site might provide for it.
4. In providing you that, I very CLEARLY pointed out I am in no way claiming it to be an authority, and I did not expect you to accept it as your answer as the entire point was just trying to relate to you that is a more complex answer than you realized.

If my goal was to clearly establish that I could not answer your question properly and then gave the reason why, how am I simple cut and pasting and expecting you to just accept the information I pasted? Again, you miss the points I was making. You continue to accuse me, for being honest with my intent and response. As I said, you refuse to accept an honest answer and continue to ridicule, imply devious motive and evasion.

Yes, you are senile or unhinged. Wasn't Jesus a Rabbi? The point wasn't to blindly insult or associate you with bloodsucker paedophiles, but to draw attention to the fact that you're acting like them-- snobbery against outsiders.
Anyone who is unhinged enough to rephrase that into "Or will you lead with another baby penis sucker insult?"
Is going to be misunderstood, at best, derision is likely.

You had already been calling me a liar and accusing me of deceitful evasion, with some malicious intent. You continued to make insults, continuing accusations. Yet somehow I am far off base by inferring that you referring to me as being "Jewish" (ie they are often considered devious, deceitful, ambigous, and evasive in such matters) is a slight (the baby penis sucking was simply a crude manner at reference to the level of implication you were making).

So while you "may" have been using it in a mere mocking manner as its meaning of "teacher", your previous slights (showing frustration or anger) made it difficult to take this as honest and not a growing means of being hostile. If your intent was honest, then I apologize, but certainly you can understand the logical progression as to why I may have thought as I have?

You have been fairly even in your discussion in the past, but apparently I somehow "annoyed" you and so you appear to cling to that in your response to me rather than attempt to remedy our dispute by trying to understand my intent and what I was trying to convey. If you do not accept my explanation of intent, then there is no way for us to have any honest discussion as your judgement is then my character or person, not the argument I make.

What you have done is force me into a position where I either accept your "assumption" of my intent, or somehow answer a question I can not properly answer.

Am I wrong? Maybe you could explain to me how I could properly explain the points above I have made to you in a manner that would allow you to understand and accept my explanations?

Or will you simply accuse me of being deceitful again and demand that the only remedy is to answer a question you asked which I clearly had explained I could not properly answer at that time?

Who is being unreasonable now?

[Xenich]

I don't hold all Christians in contempt. I've met several Orthodox Christians who have strong reasoning for their faith and sound arguments to justify the flaws I see within the theology, and I generally respect a lot of Orthodox, albeit for more reasons than that. I have a great deal of respect for many figures who were nominally Chrisitan by your standards, and in many ways, I consider myself a gnostic. However, this is a religion that was largely forced upon my people through coercion and lies. A religion that actively contradicts our own values and sabotaged us extensively. A religion that undeniably has concerning roots, and that has strong ties and connections to a people and religion who are my people's most heinous enemy.

I am not sure what my interpretation is to you, or how it is malicious. I am an antisemite, sure, but if that's my malcontent, then it only further validates the point I am making. Still, I don't see why it's necessary to insult me, but if that's what you feel I deserve, to each their own.

Did you mean that you consider yourself a gnostic? Or did you mean, you consider yourself agnostic? Apropos of nothing, I'm just curious right now.

OK. You have pointed out a couple facts:
- you don't like Jews.
- you think the Jews behaved like kikes for most/a great deal of Biblical history.
- Biblically speaking, the Jews were God's chosen people.

From this I infer that you don't like God, because He chose the Jews as His people and you think the Jews are just a bunch of sniveling, backstabbing kikes, which means God must be too, or at least, that He approved of their behavior. Am I correct so far?

If I am correct, I do not dispute the three facts you laid out above. I do however have a different interpretation of them. My interpretation (borne directly from the Bible, I should note) is that God did not choose a people for Himself based on their likeness or compatibility with him (although it is notable that Abraham, a pious, steadfast and devoted follower of God, was chosen as the progenitor of the Jewish lines). He had other reasons to do so. Rather, he chose the Jews as His people because they served his purposes, because he decided that from a line of their people he would enact his final salvation of all humanity's fallen estate. He did not choose them because they were especially brave (although they could be and did display immense bravery at points throughout their history), because they were especially pious (although they could be and did display exceptional piety at points throughout their history), because they were exceptionally truthful (although they did, in their infuriating and conniving way, bear the truth of the One God throughout their history, in block-headed defiance of the entire world around them), or because they were exceptionally obedient (although they could be and did display breathtaking obedience to God's commands at points throughout their history). If anything, my hasty and unconsidered interpretation would be the opposite; that God chose the Jews as His people precisely so that everyone who ever read the Bible would be forced to the conclusion that:

I will give you the treasures of darkness, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD, the God of Israel, who summons you by name.

Which is to say, God wanted to be the one to do all the work, and He wanted to be seen to be the one who did all the work. The Jews never deserved or earned what was given to them, any more than you or I do.

The Bible is not about the Jews. The Bible is about God. The Jews are in the Bible because God wanted them there, not because they had attained some special merit. Given:

I don't hold all Christians in contempt. I've met several Orthodox Christians who have strong reasoning for their faith and sound arguments to justify the flaws I see within the theology, and I generally respect a lot of Orthodox, albeit for more reasons than that.

,
I infer that you have already had these arguments, in person, with people you at least claim to respect. I further infer that your anger with the idea God would choose the Jews as His people, at any time or in any context, will not then be swayed by arguments about the interpretation of facts on an internet forum. Hence, we have nothing to argue.

If my initial inference was incorrect, please correct me.

Gnostic, not agnostic. I believe in the metaphysical. I do not like the Jewish god, neither the one of the Old Testament nor the one they currently worship. Whether they are two separate entities, I care not. And I am not really into the whole Jesus figure. The god that some Christians have worshipped seems so far removed from any of these, that it's hard for me to even consider them the same entity in many ways, and I don't have as much of a problem with these types.

Perhaps the Jews of old served a purpose. And perhaps the current Jews were severed for denying what Christians view as the true messiah. But for me, I see little reason to tie my soul or my future to it based on all this and many other factors. If you can recognize the three points you mentioned and not let your faith be manipulated against yourself or me, then I don't really mind. But I've seen so many Christians tolerate all kinds of evil, inaction, or actions that harm our interests, that I can't not mention a lot of these intricacies.

Are they truly Christians if they do such though?

Matthew 7:21-23

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

I understand though, the actions of people are often mistaken as meaning the word allows for their behavior. The Bible is filled with stories about the corruption and failure of the people. This is why Christ is needed as no man is perfect, all fall short.

That said, Christianity is really one of the only religions that I have found that are proactive in the treatment of others.

Take the Golden Rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It is proactive, it means to offer aid, be kind, concerning, just, helpful, etc...

Now contrast with the Silver Rule in many eastern religions "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." It however does not encourage acts of good and due to its principal, by doing nothing as long as one is not the cause, is not a failure of its principal. It does not encourage people to be virtuous, it simply instructs not to be the cause of bad to someone.

So, for instance, the Golden Rule would suggest someone stop to help someone in aid, while the Silver Rule has no issues with someone walking by someone in need and refusing to offer help. One promotes good will, the other accomplishes ill will through inaction.

What specific teachings do you hold to as Gnostic? My knowledge is limited, but I do think some early versions of the belief were aligned with Christian teachings, yet differed in many ways, correct? They were branded heretics by Christians though, but I also understood they have branched off over time and there isn't a lot known about how that evolved or what it turned into, which is why I was interested to know if there is some basis to which your establish the foundation of your morals to which you are beholden to?

Anyway, the issue I often run into with some beliefs is they may not have a grounding of concepts which they are beholden to. It is why I dislike systems who have loose, or individually defined moral grounds (secularism) which can easily change their own beliefs because they are the creators of them. I find it easier to deal in society with those who are at least held to a strict concept of morality so their actions are directed to such a goal.

When you say "But I've seen so many Christians tolerate all kinds of evil, inaction, or actions that harm our interests, that I can't not mention a lot of these intricacies.", I can also turn to the teachings of Christianity and show them to be in conflict (which what Christians are supposed to do with their brethren by pointing out their failures to such and encouraging them back to the path). This is not possible with some beliefs that have no measure the person must hold to (or they are vague in most concepts that the individual is allowed to choose what they see fit, producing inconsistencies in moral behavior).

Personally, I would prefer to live in a society of the strictest Christian principals (providing they are actually holding to the word) than I would any other religion due to the fact that it is the only one that I have found that truly and honestly places concern for the well being of its fellow man.

[ArcaneLurker]

You had already been calling me a liar and accusing me of deceitful evasion,

Because that is exactly what I've seen you do. Doesn't mean I said you sucked baby penises. Accusing me of that IS deceitful. Besides that, you're whining about my disrespect when you already accused me of being deceitful and malicious, so I don't know how you can make yourself out to be some kind of victim.

So far you've written a ridiculous amount of stuff, just to say that you can't tackle the issue-- and you've added even more on to it, and most of it is going to go unread-- but I won't stand for slander from someone like you. At least other people here tried.

[Xenich]

You had already been calling me a liar and accusing me of deceitful evasion,

Because that is exactly what I've seen you do. Doesn't mean I said you sucked baby penises. Accusing me of that IS deceitful. Besides that, you're whining about my disrespect when you already accused me of being deceitful and malicious, so I don't know how you can make yourself out to be some kind of victim.

No, I inferred that, but even said that I apologize if that was not your intent. What more do you want?

So far you've written a ridiculous amount of stuff, just to say that you can't tackle the issue-- and you've added even more on to it, and most of it is going to go unread-- but I won't stand for slander from someone like you. At least other people here tried.

I tried, I continue to reason why I don't feel comfortable about trying to tackle it, but you dismissed it with accusations of evasion.

Those who tried to explain are running into the same problems I tried to explain to you.

Again, you keep trying to elevate this, I am trying to concede and bring this down.

I admitted I have misunderstood some things you said, I explained my intent, even apologized.

This is all on you now, I wash my hands of it.