OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Tsk! "Therefor" not "therefore." Sloppy, Ornot, sloppy. Must have your Asshat on this morning.
What is the driving force of Islamic Jihad
- Thread starter klaatu
- Start date
Then they honestly don't read the verses in context. It is pretty straightforward.
Yet you would use only the parts you want to see to "prove" he was solely a Jew rather than take what is presented in context.
He was a Jew, but he was also more. My point was he went beyond and extended those teachings. If he had not there would be no difference between the two religions currently.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Oh, you're jumping into the "who's a real Christian" game? No thanks: I'll pass. So many Christians disagree with you -- Unitarians and many Methodists, right off -- that I prefer to simply dismiss your assertion. It is NOT straightforward. Not if disagreement on such a fundamental point can continue to this day. Prima facie evidence.
I am not. I am reading it as an outsider. Read the verses. Or shall I provide them? They are pretty straightforward, as I stated.Oh, you're jumping into the "who's a real Christian" game? No thanks: I'll pass. So many Christians disagree with you -- Unitarians and many Methodists, right off -- that I prefer to simply dismiss your assertion. It is NOT straightforward. Not if disagreement on such a fundamental point can continue to this day. Prima facie evidence.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Sorry, but I have. And I do honestly disagree with you: they can be interpreted either way.
I will bold the passages that are part of that. For those who want to look them up, go to Bible Gatway and seek John Chapter 3.
That is pretty straightforward and part of the exact same teachings.
Much like anybody saying, "If I'm a good person I'll be saved" are only from a group that hasn't read, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Saying that it isn't necessary to believe this portion is from a group who plays the pick and choose game.
From this I can tell you that if the Bible is correct then I am condemned regardless of how good a person I am because I do not believe that Christ was God.
Litmus
Verified User
This is true. Many christians have become noahides, according to plan. They were getting too much flack for getting hung up on this jesus guy.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
If I truly believed that yours was the only possible interpretation of the creed -- not just this passage but the enchilada -- then I would conclude, without hesitation, that Christianity is inherently evil and should be destroyed. No joke. Nuke the Vatican and start firebombing full churches, 'cause these people are vermin.
Fortunately, I happen to believe your taking of these verses, in a particular translation and out of context, is misleading.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Noachides are the good guys, in case you hadn't noticed.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
That is logically consistent.
I really don't believe that Christianity has to be the hateful, ignorant, woman-hating, baby-crushing monolith that so many Americans try to make it. The simple fact that so many decent, liberal churches even exist in the face of such narrow, didactic pronouncements as Damo's makes it clear to me that some Christians really do think. They don't get hung up on individual verses, each of them subject to semantic noise and interference over two milenia of re-transimission and translation. Rather, they look at the whole of Jesus' teaching and try to evaluate what is consistent and what is not.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
True, that. Same can be said of thinking Muslims vs. asshole Muslims.
uscitizen
Villified User
They are not out of context. I gave the entire fricking chapter practically...If I truly believed that yours was the only possible interpretation of the creed -- not just this passage but the enchilada -- then I would conclude, without hesitation, that Christianity is inherently evil and should be destroyed. No joke. Nuke the Vatican and start firebombing full churches, 'cause these people are vermin.
Fortunately, I happen to believe your taking of these verses, in a particular translation and out of context, is misleading.
But whatever floats your boat. It's not like I'm trying to convert you or something.
Man, you are really thick. I am not a christian. I am not pronouncing any of this.That is logically consistent.
I really don't believe that Christianity has to be the hateful, ignorant, woman-hating, baby-crushing monolith that so many Americans try to make it. The simple fact that so many decent, liberal churches even exist in the face of such narrow, didactic pronouncements as Damo's makes it clear to me that some Christians really do think. They don't get hung up on individual verses, each of them subject to semantic noise and interference over two milenia of re-transimission and translation. Rather, they look at the whole of Jesus' teaching and try to evaluate what is consistent and what is not.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
I know you're not a Christian but you are making pronouncements about who else is and is not. You've taken one particular set of verses from John, pronounced them pivotal, and implied that those Christians who disagree with your personal interpretation of said verses are fundamentally in error. You have effectively dismissed all Unitarians and a lot of other Christians as inferior, simply because they don't see Nicodemus as you do.
And yes, you have taken them out of context. Out of the larger context of the entire New Testament, that is.
Many try to assert that Jesus excluded gentiles (non-Jews) from his ministry. From Mark, you can get this impression. Yet most Christian scholars say that Mark is misinterpreted in this regard. Similarly, many Christians cannot believe that the Good Samaritan would have been damned.