Replies

Too bad then that these things are already perfectly consistent with a naturalistic world view.

Not one soul really believes that.

Well, in the first place, what I was saying is that you are being disingenuous by ignoring the vast majority of the New Testament (let’s not even get started on the Old) by pretending that two quotations from Jesus constitute the whole of “revealed truth” found in them. The entire set of books is supposed to be “revealed truth,” so you cannot run away from the cow to skim the cream.

Ignoring nothing! I am only bringing up the most relevant points. Jesus being the most relevant represenitive of Christian revealed truth, and the statement of what he asserted were the two most pivotal commandments upon which all morality is based as being the most relevant.

My respect for Christianity is pretty profound, and I am very dedicated to understanding the entire NT correctly.

Why are you accusing me of a reading comprehension problem here when the early church father’s all understood that passage exactly as I have portrayed it?

Because Jesus made it plainly clear that he was referring specifically to the religious leaders and nobody but a dope or bigot who bothered to read it in context could have possibly missed it! Thus after making sure what your position is, and making sure I did not mis understand you, I have to hold that you are too bigoted to objectively read the plain words of the gospels, and you have definitively proven me right in front of all but your self.

Have fun projecting back at me, but it won't work for anyone who is not also willfully blind.

"Not one soul really believes that."

Aaaah... so now you claim omniscience do you? Not one soul? How do you possibly explain me then?

Now... it seems quite clear that you have abandoned the discussion and instead have chosen to make your last stand a milquetoast testimony of your respect for Christianity. If that is how you choose to leave the discussion, I am content to do so, since I have no interest in attacking anybody else's religious beliefs once they have ceased to offend. And I am comfortable that I have done a competent job of defending the fact that morality requires no imposition by a Cosmic disciplinarian.

But I feel obligated to hold your feet to the fire on one particular issue, and it has deeply troubled me for a couple days now. Several posts ago, you inexplicably defended the long and acknowledged history of Christian anti-Semitism as understandable payback for the Jews having killed Christ. Now, I do not believe you think it was deserved payback, and you certainly didn't say so. But you did seem to say that it was understandable, just one of those things that happens "when people get riled up."

Now... it was you and not me that volunteered the reputation of Jews as "Christ Killers." And yet you seem to deny that the Gospel of John could possibly have anything to do with that reputation. So, I still have to ask: If it did not come from the Gospels, where did it come from?

You wrote that, "My respect for Christianity is pretty profound, and I am very dedicated to understanding the entire NT correctly." Is it still not clear to you that it is precisely your "correct understanding of the NT" that led to the damning rhetorical stumble where you actually tried to justify the Holocaust as payback?

As uncomfortable as it must be to be that introspective, do you honestly not connect the dots between your "correct understanding" of the NT and your own justification of violence against the Jews?