Do you love your enemies?

[Xenich]

I ask for proof > "You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering". I don't even know what "as you were" meant but okay. Instead of educating me, a sinner, and providing an example for anyone reading that may be on the fence, you devolve to this for everyone to see. Not sure why I expected more of you. Disappointing.

Read the whole book of 1st Samuel. Know the entire story, did you? I said numerous times why, you disregarded as if I was telling you a lie. I am not going to sit here and tit for tat versus with you. At least be honest and do your own homework before you start spouting off about being scorned because I didn't answer in the manner that works for your argument.

And cut out the poor whiny victim routine. Read if you want to learn because your questions are answered if you simply read what I asked.

I only know what 1 Samuel says - the source passed down from the Israelites, and certain aspects displayed in the archaeological record, which I haven't included because we are just discussing the values of these people based on their own text. That's all I'll add.

So you didn't read how the Philistines stole the ARK? Or about them constantly warring with Israel through encroachment on their land, razing and killing? Or about the fact that in defense of this by Israel, they killed over 4000 of the Israelites? Why they were fearful? Or about God talking to David both directly and through his heart? There is a heck of a lot more, 31 more chapters to go through which explain the context and about what was happening and show your summary to be quite wrong.

I mean, sure.. you can call out that they were cowards if that is what you believe, they were afraid, but your summary of the intent, response, and severity of the actions are all "confined" to a very limited view of the book.

Also, don't act like somehow you are an innocent here that was simply asking questions, your previous comments on Christianity as well as your quick to summarize and proclaim intent is obvious of not wanting to discuss, but dictate your view as truth.

Maybe it is your misconception that Christians are weak and and tolerant, but make no mistake, while some may be, this is not the word of the Bible. While I would be happy to explain as I can, even help you research that which I may not be clear on, I won't waste my time sparing with with someone who has already made up their mind and while I would love for you to embrace Christ, I will not weight myself with the guilt of someone who does not wish to honestly look for him. You make your own choices and you can live with the consequences, this is your God given right.

[ArcaneLurker]

Is it honest to take things out of context?

There is literally no way this can be taken out of context. I will show you the same respect that you've shown me and stop reading here.

[Nammu Archag]

The fact you have to interpret what's already apparent says enough. There's no interpretation. They slaughtered the Philistines and plundered them. Did that not happen according to the Bible? They didn't honor the deal they agreed to in their own holy texts. Did that not happen in the Bible? When presented with what the actual bible says, and the biological reality that the Israelites were a Semitic, Middle Eastern-derived people, the same as the jews, you just insult me despite having provided a clear and well-known example as asked.

I didn't interpret anything for you, for exactly this mendacious attitude. As I said, you don't want to understand the Bible, and certainly not the Israelites or God. You just want to spit on them. QED:

I've read the Bible. However, I wasn't going to cite the entire book when you asked for an example for obvious reasons. "Idolaters and soothsayers" describes everyone the Israelites face, including themselves at many points. Why did the Jews not fight the Philistines if they were so untrustworthy? Why wait for someone to accept the duel and cower in the meantime? Were they not dismayed and terrified, was that a lie? They sat around and cowered, and let an unknown boy fight in their stead. They still gleefully slaughtered fleeing men (and likely women and children), they still cut off the honorable champions head, and they still plundered. Even if the Philistines slaughtered and plundered in the past, they didn't do so in circumstances like this. And they chased them into Ekran and Gath, which wasn't just firmly Phillsitine land but far into it. To their own towns and homes. The most obvious moral from this story is that its okay to slaughter, lie, and plunder in the most slimy way as long as you are a member of this group that believes in this god.

How casually you dismiss this behavior solely because the Jews said the enemy deserved it is telling.

...

Can you give the actual facts? Instead of claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, can you prove me wrong? It should be easy if I'm just being malicious.

Again, I like to do the same thing. Of course I won't "give the actual facts", because the problem isn't that you don't have command of them (or at least, of enough of them to be able to form an opinion). The facts you've put forth so far were never in dispute, but just to be clear, I believe I agree on all of them. My issue is your interpretation of the facts, which is clearly malicious and which you clearly have no desire to change.

Again, QED:

I ask for proof > "You are continuing as you were.. again.. not bothering". I don't even know what "as you were" meant but okay. Instead of educating me, a sinner, and providing an example for anyone reading that may be on the fence, you devolve to this for everyone to see. Not sure why I expected more of you. Disappointing.

Now you're just straight cringe. Massive



vibes here.

There's no point talking. Barring some unforeseen attitude shift I have nothing else to say to you on this subject.

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.

[Xenich]

Is it honest to take things out of context?

There is literally no way this can be taken out of context. I will show you the same respect that you've shown me and stop reading here.

Then you missed that I was not going to discuss this with you and why.

If by not answering questions you specifically want me to answer, even after explaining why is disrespectful, then you are doing exactly as I explained, trying to constrain the discussion to hold to your point and your position is not to understand, but to proclaim yourself victorious. I have been honest in my intent and my explanations as to why. If that is not good enough, then nothing other than complete submission to your position will be which is exactly what I explained is a common approach by those who have disdain for Christianity.

[Kalarion]

Ask yourself why @maidenhaver was able to respond clearly & honestly, yet you can't.

The point is about the contradiction. Everything else is irrelevant. I'm tired of dishonesty, whether it's from the religious or from Leftwing political zealots.
I should only need to point out a single contradiction to prove the claim "there are no contradictions" false.

Horse shit. You pointed out what you thought was a contradiction in the Bible. Xenich provided you an explanation that showed there was no contradiction, and then you told him he was avoiding the point. I asked, "what is the point?", because the only explanation for your response that didn't involve us telling you to burn in hell, and you calling us christcucks, was that you'd made a point other than the obvious, and we'd missed it.

Again. Given that the charge of contradiction on the matter of Christ rebuking the stone-throwers was given an explanation; given that you didn't even attempt to engage that explanation, beyond a rude accusation, which implies you accept it; we must assume either (1) that you made some other point of contradiction, which we didn't address; or (2) that you got pissy because you didn't like the answer, but couldn't figure out a way to show it was contradictory (because it wasn't). What was the contradiction you were trying to point out, which was not answered? If your problem is that you don't like Xenich's explanation, on what basis do you reject it as not explaining your contended contradiction?

I am willing to explain stuff. But I'm not interested giving an explanation for what I think you're asking, only to have you accuse me of avoiding your point.

[ArcaneLurker]

Then you missed that I was not going to discuss this with you and why.

If by not answering questions you specifically want me to answer, even after explaining why is disrespectful, then you are doing exactly as I explained, trying to constrain the discussion to hold to your point and your position is not to understand, but to proclaim yourself victorious. I have been honest in my intent and my explanations as to why. If that is not good enough, then nothing other than complete submission to your position will be which is exactly what I explained is a common approach by those who have disdain for Christianity.

Why go to all this effort to make excuses about why you're not answering it directly? I consider it very dishonest to claim it's a misuse of "context."
I will just assume that you not answering it directly because you can't. You have to avoid it to maintain faith.

Horse shit. You pointed out what you thought was a contradiction in the Bible. Xenich provided you an explanation that showed there was no contradiction, and then you told him he was avoiding the point. I asked, "what is the point?", because the only explanation for your response that didn't involve us telling you to burn in hell, and you calling us christcucks, was that you'd made a point other than the obvious, and we'd missed it.

Again. Given that the charge of contradiction on the matter of Christ rebuking the stone-throwers was given an explanation; given that you didn't even attempt to engage that explanation, beyond a rude accusation, which implies you accept it; we must assume either (1) that you made some other point of contradiction, which we didn't address; or (2) that you got pissy because you didn't like the answer, but couldn't figure out a way to show it was contradictory (because it wasn't). What was the contradiction you were trying to point out, which was not answered? If your problem is that you don't like Xenich's explanation, on what basis do you reject it as not explaining your contended contradiction?

I am willing to explain stuff. But I'm not interested giving an explanation for what I think you're asking, only to have you accuse me of avoiding your point.

Now you're just going to try and gaslight me? That's not going to work.
He did not tackle the point directly, and instead went on and on about why it's unfair to expect him to directly tackle the contradiction. I assume you didn't read what he wrote as you usually don't.

[Xenich]

Then you missed that I was not going to discuss this with you and why.

If by not answering questions you specifically want me to answer, even after explaining why is disrespectful, then you are doing exactly as I explained, trying to constrain the discussion to hold to your point and your position is not to understand, but to proclaim yourself victorious. I have been honest in my intent and my explanations as to why. If that is not good enough, then nothing other than complete submission to your position will be which is exactly what I explained is a common approach by those who have disdain for Christianity.

Why go to all this effort to make excuses about why you're not answering it directly? I consider it very dishonest to claim it's a misuse of "context."
I will just assume that you can't answer it directly because you can't. You have to avoid it to maintain faith.

Now you are being dishonest. You were the one that claimed you didn't need to reference anything else, that all that mattered was your specific question being answered within the context you presented.

It would be like asking a question about a specific error in a representation of a given mathematical concept with the context to which that error can not be properly explained without further explaining a higher concept that shows why. Since you established the constraint of the context, the answer can not be derived in any meaningful way you will accept, meaning you have controlled the other side of the argument to failure. Either I am right, or you are wrong. Pick one!

As I said, this requires multiple references across multiple books in both the new and old testament to explain. I also explained that I am not prepared to apply such a level of explanation. I was being honest with you, but you insist that I answer the question, which makes you dishonest in your discussion and your intent. You don't want to know, you just want to win.

[Xenich]

Ask yourself why @maidenhaver was able to respond clearly & honestly, yet you can't.

The point is about the contradiction. Everything else is irrelevant. I'm tired of dishonesty, whether it's from the religious or from Leftwing political zealots.
I should only need to point out a single contradiction to prove the claim "there are no contradictions" false.

Horse shit. You pointed out what you thought was a contradiction in the Bible. Xenich provided you an explanation that showed there was no contradiction, and then you told him he was avoiding the point. I asked, "what is the point?", because the only explanation for your response that didn't involve us telling you to burn in hell, and you calling us christcucks, was that you'd made a point other than the obvious, and we'd missed it.

Again. Given that the charge of contradiction on the matter of Christ rebuking the stone-throwers was given an explanation; given that you didn't even attempt to engage that explanation, beyond a rude accusation, which implies you accept it; we must assume either (1) that you made some other point of contradiction, which we didn't address; or (2) that you got pissy because you didn't like the answer, but couldn't figure out a way to show it was contradictory (because it wasn't). What was the contradiction you were trying to point out, which was not answered? If your problem is that you don't like Xenich's explanation, on what basis do you reject it as not explaining your contended contradiction?

I am willing to explain stuff. But I'm not interested giving an explanation for what I think you're asking, only to have you accuse me of avoiding your point.

Quick note, It was @maidenhaver who he was ultimately discussing, I think I popped into provide a basic description, but wasn't fully into the whole argument. When he started to direct it at me specifically, I explained why I wasn't going to discuss it honestly and that the other discussion I was having was more easily established due to its context involving issues that were directly answered within that book itself.

My issue now with him is that he won't seem to accept that explanation and counts it as some type of avoidance to the issue. /shrug

[ArcaneLurker]

You were the one that claimed you didn't need to reference anything else

What the hell are you talking about? Genuinely confused by this bizarre reply.

It would be like asking a question about a specific error in a representation of a given mathematical concept with the context to which that error can not be properly explained without further explaining a higher concept that shows why. Since you established the constraint of the context, the answer can not be derived in any meaningful way you will accept, meaning you have controlled the other side of the argument to failure. Either I am right, or you are wrong. Pick one!

I want to constrain the discussion from going on a tangent, you ridiculous creature. If the context is relevant to why it's not a contradiction, then I will respond to it, as I have already done so. If you didn't read it, that is not a problem I can solve, if I misunderstood, then your attempts to dismiss the contradiction do not make any logical sense to me.

Maidenhaver responded to me in an honest way, it's not something I agree with, but I understood it as him being honest, and he does recognise the contradiction there-- you however, are trying to be cunning with wordplay. You're desperately trying to create an issue to distract from the main point.

As I said, this requires multiple references across multiple books in both the new and old testament to explain. I also explained that I am not prepared to apply such a level of explanation. I was being honest with you, but you insist that I answer the question, which makes you dishonest in your discussion and your intent. You don't to know, you just want to win.

It requires an explanation for why one moral standard/ law was promoted and then a completely mutually exclusive standard/ law was promoted--
And I mean communal executions. Why would what God previously commanded not have any relevance?
So far you've only made excuses for why you're not going to bother, yet here you are wasting the energy of your fingers on typing paragraphs & paragraphs at why you can't offer a simple paragraph in response directly tackling the issue.

I have seen you, multiple times now, try to worm your way out of providing any solid contextual reference, and you're complaining to me that I'm not allowing context?
You're only offering vague claims.

Quick note, It was @maidenhaver who he was ultimately discussing, I think I popped into provide a basic description, but wasn't fully into the whole argument. When he started to direct it at me specifically, I explained why I wasn't going to discuss it honestly and that the other discussion I was having was more easily established due to its context involving issues that were directly answered within that book itself.

My issue now with him is that he won't seem to accept that explanation and counts it as some type of avoidance to the issue. /shrug

I need to correct you there. You directed it at me first, interjecting yourself into the conversation. I did not direct it at you, at all.

[Xenich]

Ok @ArcaneLurker
This is just to explain the concept of the law and fulfillment.

Here is a list of many of the verses and books that this topic deals with, as well as some basic concepts that relate to it:

Matthew 5:19
Matthew 5:17
Sermon on the mount
Isaiah 55:10–11
Romans 10:4
Matthew 1:22, 13:35
John 19:36
Luke 24:44
Matthew 22:35–40
Mark 1:44
John 8:46 
1 Peter 2:22
Hebrews 10:1
Hebrews 9:24
Hebrews 9:10
Hebrews 10:8–14
Colossians 2:14
Galatians 3:23–25
Galatians 6:2
Galatians 2:16


Concepts concerning:
Is the law still Binding?
Mosaic Law
New Covenant
Old Covenant 

Now this was a very quick grab I did just to give you an idea. I have not looked through them all and cross referenced them to see if this source explanation I picked up is on key, it is merely to give you an idea of what it takes to properly explain a given concept like this. So when you constrain it to a given verse or context, then demand an answer... well... this is the problem, it doesn't work like that.

Make sense now why I said what I said?

► Show Spoiler

You were the one that claimed you didn't need to reference anything else

What the hell are you talking about? Genuinely confused by this bizarre reply.

It would be like asking a question about a specific error in a representation of a given mathematical concept with the context to which that error can not be properly explained without further explaining a higher concept that shows why. Since you established the constraint of the context, the answer can not be derived in any meaningful way you will accept, meaning you have controlled the other side of the argument to failure. Either I am right, or you are wrong. Pick one!

I want to constrain the discussion from going on a tangent, you ridiculous creature. If the context is relevant to why it's not a contradiction, then I will respond to it, as I have already done so. If you didn't read it, that is not a problem I can solve, if I misunderstood, then your attempts to dismiss the contradiction do not make any logical sense to me.

Maidenhaver responded to me in an honest way, it's not something I agree with, but I understood it as him being honest, and he does recognise the contradiction there-- you however, are trying to be cunning with wordplay. You're desperately trying to create an issue to distract from the main point.

As I said, this requires multiple references across multiple books in both the new and old testament to explain. I also explained that I am not prepared to apply such a level of explanation. I was being honest with you, but you insist that I answer the question, which makes you dishonest in your discussion and your intent. You don't to know, you just want to win.

It requires an explanation for why one moral standard/ law was promoted and then a completely mutually exclusive standard/ law was promoted--
And I mean communal executions. Why would what God previously commanded not have any relevance?
So far you've only made excuses for why you're not going to bother, yet here you are wasting the energy of your fingers on typing paragraphs & paragraphs at why you can't offer a simple paragraph in response directly tackling the issue.

I have seen you, multiple times now, try to worm your way out of providing any solid contextual reference, and you're complaining to me that I'm not allowing context?
You're only offering vague claims.

Edit: I did initially interject, but only to comment on the concept of why it is difficult to explain this and continued repeatedly to explain why.
See above

[ArcaneLurker]

Matthew 5:19
Matthew 5:17
Sermon on the mount
Isaiah 55:10–11
Romans 10:4
Matthew 1:22, 13:35
John 19:36
Luke 24:44
Matthew 22:35–40
Mark 1:44
John 8:46
1 Peter 2:22
Hebrews 10:1
Hebrews 9:24
Hebrews 9:10
Hebrews 10:8–14
Colossians 2:14
Galatians 3:23–25
Galatians 6:2
Galatians 2:16

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Immediately, I'm asking "How is this relevant?" And I struggle to answer.

I actually brought Matthew 5:17 up with Maidenhaver already though. So this shows me you didn't even read the conversation you interjected yourself into.

I had a quick look but I'm stopping half way because non of these are relevant to the point. Please develop a better sense of logic and what "context" means.

Edit: I did initially interject, but only to comment on the concept of why it is difficult to explain this and continued repeatedly to explain why.
See above

Isn't it a bit silly to start an argument just to say why you're not going to give a proper response to the issue?

[Kalarion]

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.

[Xenich]

Matthew 5:19
Matthew 5:17
Sermon on the mount
Isaiah 55:10–11
Romans 10:4
Matthew 1:22, 13:35
John 19:36
Luke 24:44
Matthew 22:35–40
Mark 1:44
John 8:46
1 Peter 2:22
Hebrews 10:1
Hebrews 9:24
Hebrews 9:10
Hebrews 10:8–14
Colossians 2:14
Galatians 3:23–25
Galatians 6:2
Galatians 2:16

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Immediately, I'm asking "How is this relevant?" And I struggle to answer.

I actually brought Matthew 5:17 up with Maidenhaver already though. So this shows me you didn't even read the conversation you interjected yourself into.

I had a quick look but I'm stopping half way because non of these are relevant to the point. Please develop a better sense of logic and what "context" means.

Edit: I did initially interject, but only to comment on the concept of why it is difficult to explain this and continued repeatedly to explain why.
See above

Isn't it a bit silly to start an argument just to say why you're not going to give a proper response to the issue?

Again, this requires connecting the dots, discussing multiple references to explain the context and purpose that was being fullfilled. You have to understand the concepts, I explained I am not prepated to discuss this, I have said this over and over, yet you continue to persist.

How many times do I have to explain to you that I am not prepared to discuss this? This is how the Bible is read when you are researching a given concept. Some topics are quite clear, but when you start claiming there are conflicts, you are essentially claiming a false premise because once the concept is fully explained through the connection of those verses, the concepts, etc.. it works together to establish the reasoning and intent.

WARNING: I am in no way saying this is what I agree with as I have not looked through it completely and traced the facts of its mention myself. It is simply to give you an example of how you work these things together. It may be wrong in my view, I have no idea.. So please don't start linking up how this is wrong, how I am wrong, blah blah blah.

https://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

Note how each verse is used as a means to explain and reference each other to explain the meaning of things. It crosses multiple verses.

It is to give you an idea of HOW you research and understand in the Bible (in case you are not familiar with this process).

Look, I can't be anymore honest than I have. If that isn't good enough as a fair response to my interjection into the your discussion, nothing will satisfy you.

Isn't it a bit silly to start an argument just to say why you're not going to give a proper response to the issue?

Not if the point of the response was to explain how this really is a more complex discussion than can be answered by random conversation and requires extensive reference to show your "conflict" isn't a "conflict"

[ArcaneLurker]

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.

NGL that is a pretty convincing angle.

Again, this requires connecting the dots, discussing multiple references to explain the context and purpose that was being fullfilled. You have to understand the concepts, I explained I am not prepated to discuss this, I have said this over and over, yet you continue to persist.

How many times do I have to explain to you that I am not prepared to discuss this? This is how the Bible is read when you are researching a given concept. Some topics are quite clear, but when you start claiming there are conflicts, you are essentially claiming a false premise because once the concept is fully explained through the connection of those verses, the concepts, etc.. it works together to establish the reasoning and intent.

WARNING: I am in no way saying this is what I agree with as I have not looked through it completely and traced the facts of its mention myself. It is simply to give you an example of how you work these things together. It may be wrong in my view, I have no idea.. So please don't start linking up how this is wrong, how I am wrong, blah blah blah.

https://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

Note how each verse is used as a means to explain and reference each other to explain the meaning of things. It crosses multiple verses.

It is to give you an idea of HOW you research and understand in the Bible (in case you are not familiar with this process).

Look, I can't be anymore honest than I have. If that isn't good enough as a fair response to my interjection into the your discussion, nothing will satisfy you.

That sounds very convenient for dismissing the criticisms of outsiders, Rabbi.
Although I'm not arguing about abolishment of the law, I'm talking about a contradiction that I have never seen an answer for.
Maidenhaver was the one that is arguing the law is abolished because it was corrupted by Jews.
So is that what you're taking issue with?

[Kalarion]

Now you're just going to try and gaslight me? That's not going to work.
He did not tackle the point directly, and instead went on and on about why it's unfair to expect him to directly tackle the contradiction. I assume you didn't read what he wrote as you usually don't.

---

Pardon me, it wasn't Xenich. It was OnTilt:

This isn't the contradiction that people think it is, and honestly is just one tier above "Well if God can do anything, can he make a rock heavier than he can lift?" type arguments.
Some scheming Jews were trying to set up a situation to force Jesus' hand as a 'gotcha' moment, and he used it to teach a lesson instead.

Although to be fair, it is one of the more difficult passages to fully wrap your head around. I'm not 100% sure that I get it myself. Suffice it to say that Jesus' mission here was one of forgiveness and redemption (judgement and damnation are for next time) -- and this anecdote serves to remind us to be merciful in our own lives. This doesn't mean that adultery is suddenly okay, or that it isn't still the purview of the authorities to punish adulterers.

And it was your response to OnTilt that I was talking about:

Despite first making out this was a reddit nothingburger, your reply doesn't really tackle the issue.

Now: what was your point?

[ArcaneLurker]

Now: what was your point?

As I said before, he did not tackle the main issue of the contradiction, and I do not understand why you think he did. I never said that Sexual Immorality was suddenly permitted.

The Law given to the Jews was meant to be the 'perfect law' for all time. Directives from God in how they ought to conduct society/ justice. Communal stoning for certain sins is apart of that. For the same God, or a representative of the God, that gave those directives to suddenly turn around and then say "actually you shouldn't stone anyone unless you're without sin" is a contradiction. Do I really need to explain why it's a contradiction?

[Xenich]

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.

NGL that is a pretty convincing angle.

Again, this requires connecting the dots, discussing multiple references to explain the context and purpose that was being fullfilled. You have to understand the concepts, I explained I am not prepated to discuss this, I have said this over and over, yet you continue to persist.

How many times do I have to explain to you that I am not prepared to discuss this? This is how the Bible is read when you are researching a given concept. Some topics are quite clear, but when you start claiming there are conflicts, you are essentially claiming a false premise because once the concept is fully explained through the connection of those verses, the concepts, etc.. it works together to establish the reasoning and intent.

WARNING: I am in no way saying this is what I agree with as I have not looked through it completely and traced the facts of its mention myself. It is simply to give you an example of how you work these things together. It may be wrong in my view, I have no idea.. So please don't start linking up how this is wrong, how I am wrong, blah blah blah.

https://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

Note how each verse is used as a means to explain and reference each other to explain the meaning of things. It crosses multiple verses.

It is to give you an idea of HOW you research and understand in the Bible (in case you are not familiar with this process).

Look, I can't be anymore honest than I have. If that isn't good enough as a fair response to my interjection into the your discussion, nothing will satisfy you.

That sounds very convenient for dismissing the criticisms of outsiders, Rabbi.
Although I'm not arguing about abolishment of the law, I'm talking about a contradiction that I have never seen an answer for.
Maidenhaver was the one that is arguing the law is abolished because it was corrupted by Jews.
So is that what you're taking issue with?

No, I have no issue with this claim that the law was corrupted by the Pharisees, Jesus rebuked them for it, and commended those who held to it.

My comments, my point in the injection was that your claim of contradiction isn't so, but at the same time, it takes a lot of scripture to explain it properly to someone who knows honestly, very little about the Bible. If bring up one point, you will have a question, which means I will have to bring up another reference to explain that, which will bring up other questions, which will also require further explanation on various concepts. I don't have that level of knowledge available to answer directly right off hand (I am not some Bible wiz), but I have heard this concept discussed and read about it through the Bible in the past. In order for me to answer your questions, I would have to spend some time reading, cross referencing, etc.. Which is funny because if I were so interested in the topic to persist in asking someone to prove it, I would go research it myself (as I have done with arguments concerning the Koran, the Talmud, and many other religions I might have taken issue with). Do you not apply the same level of interest to your focuses or do you expect everyone to just answer the questions as if you were a teenager looking for someone to do their homework?

What part of that do you not understand? Or will you lead with another baby penis sucker insult?

[Acrux]

NGL that is a pretty convincing angle.

Not only is it pretty convincing, the Bible is pretty clear that that's why God chose Israel. Jacob (Israel's namesake) is shown over and over again to be a trickster. It wasn't because of some intrinsic virtue or holiness of the nation of Israel. God used them to make it clear that because they were a weak and insignificant people if they were able to accomplish anything great, it was entirely His doing.

7 The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

[ArcaneLurker]

I have no issue with this claim that the law was corrupted by the Pharisees, Jesus rebuked them for it, and commended those who held to it.

That isn't what he said. The Pharisees had corrupted through their oral law (I am repeating myself here), but Maidenhaver was talking about the OT law in general.

My comments, my point in the injection was that your claim of contradiction isn't so, but at the same time, it takes a lot of scripture to explain it properly to someone who knows honestly, very little about the Bible.

So it basically amounts to "you're wrong because I said so." Fascinating. Duly noted.

If bring up one point, you will have a question, which means I will have to bring up another reference to explain that, which will bring up other questions, which will also require further explanation on various concepts. I don't have that level of knowledge available to answer directly right off hand (I am not some Bible wiz), but I have heard this concept discussed and read about it through the Bible in the past. In order for me to answer your questions, I would have to spend some time reading, cross referencing, etc.. Which is funny because if I were so interested in the topic to persist in asking someone to prove it, I would go research it myself (as I have done with arguments concerning the Koran, the Talmud, and many other religions I might have taken issue with). Do you not apply the same level of interest to your focuses or do you expect everyone to just answer the questions as if you were a teenager looking for someone to do their homework?

You have gone to great lengths to write many words about the words you can not write. "I can't explain" okay... shut up then? Why are you repeating yourself? You're just digging the hole even deeper. The reality is that it would be easy to explain within one paragraph your failure to do this says a lot to me.

What part of that do you not understand? Or will you lead with another baby penis sucker insult?

Genuinely, are you schizophrenic or just senile? I haven't mentioned Jews sucking baby penises, let alone insulted anyone by saying it.

NGL that is a pretty convincing angle.

Not only is it pretty convincing, the Bible is pretty clear that that's why God chose Israel. Jacob (Israel's namesake) is shown over and over again to be a trickster. It wasn't because of some intrinsic virtue or holiness of the nation of Israel. God used them to make it clear that because they were a weak and insignificant people if they were able to accomplish anything great, it was entirely His doing.

7 The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

"Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed,
And whoever curses Israel will be cursed."

"Actually I chose you guys because you're the most pathetic group out of the ones that still have enough intellect to read & write."

"Wh-what?"

[Xenich]

Now: what was your point?

As I said before, he did not tackle the main issue of the contradiction, and I do not understand why you think he did. I never said that Sexual Immorality was suddenly permitted.

The Law given to the Jews was meant to be the 'perfect law' for all time. Directives from God in how they ought to conduct society/ justice. Communal stoning for certain sins is apart of that. For the same God, or a representative of the God, that gave those directives to suddenly turn around and then say "actually you shouldn't stone anyone unless you're without sin" is a contradiction. Do I really need to explain why it's a contradiction?

This is the problem here that I was getting at initially, kind of what I was talking about. This is the process of the fulfillment of law, what was the old covenant, what is the new, what was the purpose of the law and the fulfillment. All those versus and concepts I mentioned are part of that explanation. It isn't a simple answer that can be explained easily imo. Maybe @Kalarion can?

[Xenich]

That isn't what he said. The Pharisees had corrupted through their oral law (I am repeating myself here), but Maidenhaver was talking about the OT law in general.

No, they corrupted the "Law of the Prophets" the Hebrew Bible. Jesus mentions this multiple times in the Bible as such.
Matthew 22:40 "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” for example

(see the need for more explanation, more references and how your initial premise is based on incorrect information?

So it basically amounts to "you're wrong because I said so." Fascinating. Duly noted.

Nope, I merely stated that what you seek takes a lot more because your premise is ignorant of many facts about the Bible, as I above showed.

You have gone to great lengths to write many words about the words you can not write. "I can't explain" okay... shut up then? Why are you repeating yourself? You're just digging the hole even deeper. The reality is that it would be easy to explain within one paragraph your failure to do this says a lot to me.

No, I provided you with some information to give you an idea about the topic. It does explain a lot of what you are asking, and corrects the misconceptions or errors you have about various things. What you want me to do is to simple go package it all up, answer you directly and I would love to, but ill be honest, if you can't be bothered to read anything that I provide you to help cover the information gap, why should I be bothered to start linking verse by verse and arguing each misconception with you? I mean, you get to say "The Bible is Wrong! This is Wrong!" and then proclaim victory even though you do so with extreme ignorance?

If it is so easy, by all means, explain it to me? Have I not stated multiple times that I am not comfortable with simply trying to summarize this, that I would need to reference to make sure what I provide you is accurate and appropriately able to answer your question?

If you know the answer so simply, why deviously play this dumb person game then?

Genuinely, are you schizophrenic or just senile? I haven't mentioned Jews sucking baby penises, let alone insulted anyone by saying it.

That sounds very convenient for dismissing the criticisms of outsiders, Rabbi.

That is what you stated. So you essentially called me a Rabbi, a Jew, and that I am deceitful.

Do you understand the possible inference that can be made from this, especially since you have insulted numerous times (like you are now). It is a surprise I might take that as an insult?

Especially when I have gone at lengths (even linked verses to support that it was complex, and even provided you with a summary that "might" better explain it since I was not up to the task?)

Yeah, but hey.. I guess I am just "senile" because you have been so honest and forthcoming as well as helpful in this discussion? Right?

[Xenich]

By the way @ArcaneLurker I could have simply cut and pasted summaries I find and simply say "There is your answer" to make my life easier and then I would be making you argue with the internet, there by taking no responsibility. I didn't do that, because I myself don't like summaries to speak for me, nor do I expect people like you to accept them either.

The proper way I believe to get someone to understand the Bible is to be able to provide them with not only a summary to the question in my own words, but support it properly with verses to affirm their meaning and then be able to field questions with the same due diligence.

So when I say "Yeah, that is incorrect, but it would take a lot to really explain this..." I am not proclaiming myself victorious, I am merely saying there are many issues with your claim and it will take some good solid explanations backed with sourcing to properly explain it, so don't expect this to be an easy answer situation.

That was my intent, that is my position and always has been from the start. It was never meant as a slight or condemnation.

[OnTilt]

As I said before, he did not tackle the main issue of the contradiction

And I tried to express in my post that its not a simple answer. I'm sorry that you found it unsatisfactory, but its the best I can do. I'm not a priest.

Consider this though. For 2000 years there has been no Christian that has lived completely without sin, and yet every Christian society has had the death penalty. Either every Christian nation has just outright ignored Jesus' words, or none of them have interpreted this passage to have the same implications you're suggesting it does.

[Xenich]

Here is a suggestion on some of these questions. Use an AI and see if it can explain. At the least, it should be able to give you a good starting point on the information.

Yes, I know the woke AI's are going to be slanted to hate Christianity, for sure... but I would go try Gab AI. Torba designed it with a base Christian core set of principals to drive it. If you wanted to at least get a fairly honest answer to the content, maybe try posing these questions to it? It can instantly reference all of the verses, access numerous writings on various subjects and might be able to give a fair explanation, at least to provide you some more insight.

I tried it myself, but I don't have an account and I apparently used up my free time chatting with it about game design.

[Acrux]

"Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed,
And whoever curses Israel will be cursed."

"Actually I chose you guys because you're the most pathetic group out of the ones that still have enough intellect to read & write."

"Wh-what?"

Where is the contradiction? Those things are orthogonal.

[OnTilt]

Here is a suggestion on some of these questions. Use an AI and see if it can explain. At the least, it should be able to give you a good starting point on the information.

Yes, I know the woke AI's are going to be slanted to hate Christianity, for sure... but I would go try Gab AI. Torba designed it with a base Christian core set of principals to drive it. If you wanted to at least get a fairly honest answer to the content, maybe try posing these questions to it? It can instantly reference all of the verses, access numerous writings on various subjects and might be able to give a fair explanation, at least to provide you some more insight.

I tried it myself, but I don't have an account and I apparently used up my free time chatting with it about game design.

I did this with ChatGPT just to see, and its basically saying the same things we did.

Why did Jesus not stone the adulteress?

ChatGPT:

► Show Spoiler

The story of Jesus and the adulterous woman is found in the Gospel of John, chapter 8, verses 1-11. According to the narrative, a woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees, who sought to test him and trap him into making a statement they could use against him. They reminded Jesus that according to the Law of Moses, such women should be stoned to death.

Instead of condemning the woman, Jesus responded in a profound and unexpected way. He stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger, and then said, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." After saying this, he continued to write on the ground. One by one, starting with the older ones, the accusers left until only Jesus and the woman remained. Jesus then asked the woman where her accusers were and if no one had condemned her. When she responded that no one had condemned her, Jesus said, "Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin."

There are several interpretations as to why Jesus did not stone the adulteress:

Jesus was demonstrating mercy and forgiveness: By refusing to condemn the woman, Jesus showed compassion and offered her a chance to repent and change her ways. This highlights Jesus' emphasis on forgiveness and redemption rather than punishment.

Jesus challenged the hypocrisy of the accusers: By inviting the accusers to examine their own hearts and consciences, Jesus exposed their hypocrisy and self-righteousness. This incident underscores Jesus' critique of those who focus on outward appearances of righteousness while neglecting matters of the heart.

Jesus fulfilled the Law through love and grace: While the Law of Moses prescribed stoning for adultery, Jesus' actions exemplify his fulfillment of the law through love and grace. He demonstrated a higher principle of justice and righteousness, emphasizing the importance of love, mercy, and forgiveness over legalistic adherence to rules.

Overall, Jesus' response to the adulterous woman reflects his teachings on love, forgiveness, and the kingdom of God, which prioritize reconciliation and transformation over condemnation and punishment.

User
But if the law of Moses DID require it, shouldn't Jesus have followed the law?

ChatGPT:

► Show Spoiler

While the Law of Moses indeed prescribed stoning as the punishment for adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22-24), it's important to understand that Jesus' actions were not a disregard for the law, but rather an expression of his deeper understanding of its purpose and his role as the fulfillment of the law.

Jesus often challenged the legalistic interpretation of the law practiced by some religious leaders of his time. He emphasized the underlying principles of love, mercy, and justice that the law was meant to uphold. In this instance, Jesus' response to the adulterous woman was consistent with his broader teachings on forgiveness, compassion, and the kingdom of God.

Jesus' refusal to condemn the woman demonstrated his authority to interpret the law and his emphasis on mercy over strict legalism. He was not rejecting the law but rather offering a new perspective on its application—one that prioritized the principles of love and forgiveness.

Furthermore, Jesus' statement, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her," highlighted the universal human condition of sinfulness and the need for humility and self-reflection before passing judgment on others.

In essence, Jesus' actions in this situation were not contrary to the law, but rather they reflected a deeper understanding and fulfillment of its true intent, which is rooted in love, mercy, and justice.

[Kalarion]

As I said before, he did not tackle the main issue of the contradiction, and I do not understand why you think he did. I never said that Sexual Immorality was suddenly permitted.

The Law given to the Jews was meant to be the 'perfect law' for all time. Directives from God in how they ought to conduct society/ justice. Communal stoning for certain sins is apart of that. For the same God, or a representative of the God, that gave those directives to suddenly turn around and then say "actually you shouldn't stone anyone unless you're without sin" is a contradiction. Do I really need to explain why it's a contradiction?

Briefly: there is no contradiction. The Mosaic law was intended as the arbiter of the human administration of justice for Israel. However God is the sovereign origin of the law, and was never bound by the dictates of its human administration.

More expansively: He always reserved to himself, by his nature, the right to dispense justice as he chose, up to and including both complete forgiveness of the repentant sinner, and eternal damnation of the unrepentant lawbreaker:

And the Lord passed by before him [Moses], and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children unto the third and to the fourth generation.”.

The examples of His doing both are littered throughout the Old Testament. The fact that He chose to forgive a repentant sinner, prohibiting her death for sin as the Mosaic law demanded under human administration, when he walked the Earth, should not at all be surprising (Note in verse 11 the adulteress's implicit understanding that she was standing in the presence of no man, but her God, in the form of His son. I personally infer here, although I concede it is not made explicit, that she also understood that He would be well within his rights to condemn her himself, and indeed appeared to expect it):

When Jesus had lifted Himself up and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?”

She said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.”

Especially in light of his oft-repeated purpose in taking on human form and acting as the final sacrifice for any and all transgressions of the repentant:

Then said Jesus unto them, “When ye have lifted up the Son of Man [that is, lifted Him up on the cross for crucifixion], then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father hath taught Me, I speak these things... And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The progression here is clear: Jesus would be lifted up on a cross in sacrifice, and His death would allow mankind to know the truth of his deed. His work would set those who accepted His sacrifice, through their repentance, free for all eternity from sin and separation from God.

[ArcaneLurker]

"Whoever blesses Israel will be blessed,
And whoever curses Israel will be cursed."

"Actually I chose you guys because you're the most pathetic group out of the ones that still have enough intellect to read & write."

"Wh-what?"

Where is the contradiction? Those things are orthogonal.

The amusing juxtaposition is between how Jews/ Israelites percieve their relationship with God and why they were chosen, and how you're saying God perceives them and why he chose them.

As I said before, he did not tackle the main issue of the contradiction

And I tried to express in my post that its not a simple answer. I'm sorry that you found it unsatisfactory, but its the best I can do. I'm not a priest.

Consider this though. For 2000 years there has been no Christian that has lived completely without sin, and yet every Christian society has had the death penalty. Either every Christian nation has just outright ignored Jesus' words, or none of them have interpreted this passage to have the same implications you're suggesting it does.

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?

The point is that in the OT, there is no expectation of moral perfection in order to proceed with communal executions. There were straightforward directives given to very obviously flawed people.

By the way @ArcaneLurker I could have simply cut and pasted summaries I find and simply say "There is your answer" to make my life easier and then I would be making you argue with the internet, there by taking no responsibility. I didn't do that, because I myself don't like summaries to speak for me, nor do I expect people like you to accept them either.

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.

That is what you stated. So you essentially called me a Rabbi, a Jew, and that I am deceitful.
Yeah, but hey.. I guess I am just "senile" because you have been so honest and forthcoming as well as helpful in this discussion? Right?

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.

(chatgpt) He was not rejecting the law but rather offering a new perspective on its application

[Kalarion]

Re: ChatGPT, I don't think its explanation is sufficient. Jesus' intent to demonstrate mercy and compassion as fulfilments of His laws was part of it, yes, but not all of it. Focusing solely on His forgiveness, to the exclusion of his sovereignty over justice, is dangerously myopic. That kind of focus may, indeed, lead to indissoluble contradiction (I don't say would lead, because I was never hung up enough on that line of argument to follow it to its logical conclusion(s)).

[Nammu Archag]

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.