There is NO SUCH THING as a "Christian Terrorist"

[This_person]

And isn't it interesting that you didn't include the next line, the one LB quoted, and the one you say can't be taken on its own



Taken as a whole, its pretty clear Jesus intends the OT laws to remain until the end of time, until everything is accomplished.

If you're going to take the whole, try the whole chapter. Once you absorb that, try the whole book.

What you're doing is intellectually dishonest by saying just one set of verses is the singular thought on the subject.

I've repeatedly asked you if you read the books I recommended. Your lack of direct answer and the quality of statements you've made show you have not researched into this question. You've made your decision on a thimble full of knowledge and refuse to even attempt to expand it to a shot glass full.

I mean, "You're right. I concede, and you win the argument! Congratulations, your well thought out arguments were too much for me!"

 

[Midnightrider]

If you're going to take the whole, try the whole chapter. Once you absorb that, try the whole book.

What you're doing is intellectually dishonest by saying just one set of verses is the singular thought on the subject.

I've repeatedly asked you if you read the books I recommended. Your lack of direct answer and the quality of statements you've made show you have not researched into this question. You've made your decision on a thimble full of knowledge and refuse to even attempt to expand it to a shot glass full.

I mean, "You're right. I concede, and you win the argument! Congratulations, your well thought out arguments were too much for me!"

If by 'books' you mean the bible, I have read the entire thing. And I did reread the chapter and have read bits and pieces numerous times. If by books you mean works by other people I am not interested.

What is intellectually dishonest is claiming those passages about honoring the emperor mean that you can break gods commandments if you think it will please the king. Jesus never said 'love your enemy unless the king wants you to kill them'.

 

[This_person]

If by 'books' you mean the bible, I have read the entire thing. And I did reread the chapter and have read bits and pieces numerous times. If by books you mean works by other people I am not interested.

What is intellectually dishonest is claiming those passages about honoring the emperor mean that you can break gods commandments if you think it will please the king. Jesus never said 'love your enemy unless the king wants you to kill them'.

In your reading, what do you think the new covenant means?

 

[PrchJrkr]

In your reading, what do you think the new covenant means?

And here we return to square one.

 

[littlelady]

And here we return to square one.

Oh, no! Not another 425 back and forth posts that got really boring! Please, y'all don't start over.

 

[Midnightrider]

In your reading, what do you think the new covenant means?

I think it means a recommitment to the laws that existed under the OT. I also think it is something Jesus didn't enact because he didn't meet the requirements stated in the OT.

The NT version of the new covenant is a bit vague as can be seen by the numerous denominations and their takes on it. I can tell you one thing it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean you can break gods commandments if you think it will please the king....

 

[This_person]

I think it means a recommitment to the laws that existed under the OT. I also think it is something Jesus didn't enact because he didn't meet the requirements stated in the OT.

The NT version of the new covenant is a bit vague as can be seen by the numerous denominations and their takes on it. I can tell you one thing it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean you can break gods commandments if you think it will please the king....

I didn't ask you what it didn't mean, because that is patently not provable.

So, in your understanding, the NT tells us that it is false? You're starting from an idiotic position. The only way to discuss this is to discuss what is said. The NT says that Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, everything else you say is invalid from the point of view of not discussing with intellectual honesty.

I do not discuss the Koran with you from the point of view the Koran is wrong (although I personally believe that it is). That would be intellectually dishonest. You have to take the texts as they are. Your position is that the NT text is wrong, and therefore you manipulate, lie, and mischaracterize every passage. You clearly cannot have an intellectually honest discussion on the topic, so I am done with this with you.

 

[Midnightrider]

I didn't ask you what it didn't mean, because that is patently not provable.

So, in your understanding, the NT tells us that it is false? You're starting from an idiotic position. The only way to discuss this is to discuss what is said. The NT says that Jesus is the Christ. Therefore, everything else you say is invalid from the point of view of not discussing with intellectual honesty.

I do not discuss the Koran with you from the point of view the Koran is wrong (although I personally believe that it is). That would be intellectually dishonest. You have to take the texts as they are. Your position is that the NT text is wrong, and therefore you manipulate, lie, and mischaracterize every passage. You clearly cannot have an intellectually honest discussion on the topic, so I am done with this with you.

You asked what I THINK it means. I gag you my answer.
The intellectually honest position is to look at the first mention of the new covenant, which is in the OT, and start there. That's what I did, and no, Jesus did not meet that description. Specifically, scripture says that everyone, you might read it as all Jews, would have the new rules written in their heart. Well they didn't. They didn't believe the 'messiah' and they didn't accept his rules. Therefore the new covenant can not have come. According to the OT.
Then I gave you want Christians think it means, which is extremely varied. Additionally I say the NT is vague on the meaning. You are welcome to try to defend your position, just remember you can't ignore the OT in doing so.

As for your 'interpretation' of the Koran, you begin with the assumption that it dictates terror and then you refuse to accept any other interpretation despite the fact that the vast majority of their clergy say yours is a completely incorrect interpretation. You claim people must 'believe' to gain the true meaning of the bible and that every line must be taken together, but you think you as an unbeliever can accurately interpret the Koran from a couple lines. That's the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[This_person]

You asked what I THINK it means. I gag you my answer.
The intellectually honest position is to look at the first mention of the new covenant, which is in the OT, and start there. That's what I did, and no, Jesus did not meet that description. Specifically, scripture says that everyone, you might read it as all Jews, would have the new rules written in their heart. Well they didn't. They didn't believe the 'messiah' and they didn't accept his rules. Therefore the new covenant can not have come. According to the OT.
Then I gave you want Christians think it means, which is extremely varied. Additionally I say the NT is vague on the meaning. You are welcome to try to defend your position, just remember you can't ignore the OT in doing so.

As for your 'interpretation' of the Koran, you begin with the assumption that it dictates terror and then you refuse to accept any other interpretation despite the fact that the vast majority of their clergy say yours is a completely incorrect interpretation. You claim people must 'believe' to gain the true meaning of the bible and that every line must be taken together, but you think you as an unbeliever can accurately interpret the Koran from a couple lines. That's the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

You must have missed it. Let me try again:

You clearly cannot have an intellectually honest discussion on the topic, so I am done with this with you.

 

[Midnightrider]

You must have missed it. Let me try again:

You clearly cannot have an intellectually honest discussion on the topic, so I am done with this with you.

You have only said that about 20 times in this thread, pretty much every time I confront you with difficult questions. You obviously don't understand the meaning of intellectual honesty.

 

[This_person]

You have only said that about 20 times in this thread, pretty much every time I confront you with difficult questions. You obviously don't understand the meaning of intellectual honesty.

You must have missed it. Let me try again:

You clearly cannot have an intellectually honest discussion on the topic, so I am done with this with you.

 

[Midnightrider]

You must have missed it. Let me try again:

You clearly cannot have an intellectually honest discussion on the topic, so I am done with this with you.

So that's 21 stomp offs in one thread. You might want to look up the words done, intellectual, and honesty before you respond AGAIN

 

[This_person]

So that's 21 stomp offs in one thread. You might want to look up the words done, intellectual, and honesty before you respond AGAIN

As usual, you missed the rest of the phrase - done with this. I'm not saying I'm done with you - watching you twist and squirm is always entertaining to me. But, with this topic you've proven an inability to discuss through continued lies, mischaracterizations, and blind spots.

Also, it's not a stomp off, it's another pat on your head while shaking mine.

atsonhead: But, you think what you need to so that you can sleep at night.

 

[Midnightrider]

As usual, you missed the rest of the phrase - done with this. I'm not saying I'm done with you - watching you twist and squirm is always entertaining to me. But, with this topic you've proven an inability to discuss through continued lies, mischaracterizations, and blind spots.

Also, it's not a stomp off, it's another pat on your head while shaking mine.

atsonhead: But, you think what you need to so that you can sleep at night.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

I made valid points about the new covenant and the limitations of your 'you got to believe to understand' logic. They don't fit your agenda and you stomp off unable to make a reasoned response. BUT you can't have that, you also NEED the last word, so you stomp back in to say

If you can explain away my point about the new covenant as per the OT, go ahead.

 

[This_person]

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

I made valid points about the new covenant and the limitations of your 'you got to believe to understand' logic. They don't fit your agenda and you stomp off unable to make a reasoned response. BUT you can't have that, you also NEED the last word, so you stomp back in to say

If you can explain away my point about the new covenant as per the OT, go ahead.

I tried harder, and you still failed to comprehend (or read any of the books I linked to you for you to understand where you're wrong). I'm walking away. Give it a try for yourself.

 

[Midnightrider]

View attachment 111009

I tried harder, and you still failed to comprehend (or read any of the books I linked to you for you to understand where you're wrong). I'm walking away. Give it a try for yourself.

I didn't fail to comprehend anything. I disagree with your interpretation. Additionally, if you can't explain which parts of the OT carry over any which parts don't there is no chance that me rereading books of the bible is going to change my interpretation to match yours.
So go ahead and stomp off in righteous indignation, you have only done it 23 times now

 

[PrchJrkr]

I will pray for you...