John Stuart Mill

>John Stuart Mill...
>Thoughts?
I like the way he disparaged people from the East. It really sold his progressiveness.

I'll ask you this: To whom does language belong? To whose benefit does 'good' apply?

Spoiler: Everyone, aka the mob. Ya dingus.

>>in the 2016 presidential election the Koch Brothers and their Donor Network spent 889 million dollars campaigning for Republican candidates
>Koch brothers lead billionaire resistance against Donald Trump
kek, wasted their money since Trump beat all those shills

>feed the mob
>worship the mob
>the mob determines right and wrong
>submit to the mob
>pleasure, pleasure, pleasure the mob continuously
disgusting.

They and the Mercers and DeVos and the rest supported him once he became the front runner
Trumps job is to be the front man, he gets peoples attention and flak while the Republican controlled senate and congress pass the legislation of the power elites
Billionaire resistance? He favors tax cuts for the rich, environmental deregulation, labor deregulation, financial deregulation, opposes medicare and medicaid and the aca and national healthcare, it goes on and on out of the far rights playbook
He just has a lousy personality

And you never denied they funded Republicans far and away above and beyond anything Soros used to do

Underrated

Did you ever consider that maybe the mob and Christianity have a mutual cause in social harmony (Matthew) and industry (Ecclesiastes)?

The cartoon you posted makes a mockery of Christian tolerance. While /pol/-posters grievances are not entirely without merit (SJWs are obnoxious and frequently unfair), but God commanded us to love. You can't deny this, but you act against it anyway. Who's the freak now? It's the man in the mirror, user. It's (You).

too bad for u, Trump won.
and Soros is a faggot-shill who supports democratic psychos, diversity cults and NGOs that ruin countries...except when they go to Israel, then he cuts their funding.

>real morality, God's law, is a pleasure calculus based on pleasing the largest mob that surrounds you
No.
Read a book.

>Christian tolerance
"Tolerance" is not a Christian virtue.

>no, no no no, I say you're wrong
>facts dont matter
>making libruls mad matters

>tolerance is not a Christian virtue
Well I suppose not if you chose to ignore Christs teachings

>"Tolerance" is not a Christian virtue.
Read the New Testament again. Or for the first time, whatever.

>>real morality, God's law, is a pleasure calculus based on pleasing the largest mob that surrounds you

>implying Christ was not literally speaking to a mob at the Sermon on the Mount
>implying The Ten Commandments were not made to bring order to the mob
>implying God is not the immortal Logos
>implying Christ's teachings are anything but Greek philosophy dressed in Platonic theology

No. You read a book.

>Christ taught modern-day "tolerance ethics"
lmfao

>speaking to a mob means you support utilitarian ethics
terrible logic

>God's commandments are strictly about pleasing the largest mob there is
kek

>God is not the immortal Logos
implying the Logos can't incarnate in human form

>Christ just repeated Greek philosophy
wew, read a book and then read the bible.

>Christ taught modern-day "tolerance ethics"
>"Tolerance" is not a Christian virtue.
What really makes me laugh is you /pol/ kids don't even realize (((who))) you are shilling for.

Love without exception (i.e., tolerance) was absolutely the foundation of Christ's teachings. The Deus Vult brand of intolerant Christianity you are referring to is from the Old Testament, the outdated Jewish concept of their national/tribal god YHWH. HE was a bad motherfucker who rained down sulphur, destroyed cities, slaughtered enemy children, and punished the disloyal. Knowing this, take another look at this image again.

Before spewing more hatred, ask yourself (((who))) you are working for.

>Love without exception (i.e., tolerance)
No such thing as this nebulous, vague "Love" in Christianity. That's modern day-pozzed ethics.
Christian love is well defined it is about willing the good of the other in accordance with God's commandments.

We aren't supposed to love sinful behavior, sinful thoughts, sinful desires, sinful sexual disorders, sinful actions, sinful clubs, sinful lifestyles, sinful religions, we aren't supposed to love heresies, idolatry, self-delusions, and all manner of wickedness. We aren't supposed to "tolerate" someone harming themselves and others with vile, wicked and wicked ways. We aren't supposed to shrug our shoulders and treat them "equally" we are supposed to identify them and educate them and correct them.

>le Christ was a peace-loving hippie like my (((TV))) says
Christ drove out the money-lenders with a whip, yelling and flipping over tables.

>The Deus Vult brand of intolerant Christianity you are referring to is from the Old Testament, the outdated Jewish concept of their national/tribal god YHWH.

Top Gnostic idiocy. The OT God is the NT God, it is the same Logos, same Father. The only difference is ceremonial/sacrificial laws have been fulfilled by Christ, everything else remains the same. Morality is the same, consequences are the same. Unrepentent Faggots are still abominations who will not inherit the Kingdom and deserve death. Read Romans 1.

Read Neeche, he btfo christianity

>What really makes me laugh is you /pol/ kids
>everyone who isn't a communist atheist is from /pol/
they really mindfucked Veeky Forums haven't they?

>Neetshit
>preaches the OverChad
>yet lives a NEET, BETA life
>pays for sex, gets stds
>asks a girl to marry him, gets rejected continuously
>Dies alone, an insane fedora
>sister corrupts all his writings

Wew, if I read him again will he sound less retarded?

Can you try refuting him again but without the memes?

>No such thing as this nebulous, vague "Love" in Christianity. That's modern day-pozzed ethics.
Actually it was called /agape/ and its usage is well documented in the Septuagint and referenced in the New Testament. Look it up.

>We aren't supposed to love sinful behavior etc. etc.
No shit. God comes first; Christ's message was forgiveness and redemption. Without Christ, hate only generates hate. You know this.

>Christ drove out the money-lenders
They were corrupting the Logos, as you are doing. They deserved to be whipped. They were not day-of-the-roped, however.

>The OT God is the NT God, it is the same Logos, same Father.
Completely misinterpretation. NT exists on top of the OT because the Hellenic Jews who wrote it intended to destroy the old tribal bullshit / messiah prophecy by replacing it, by giving it a proper ending. Christ was the messiah.

Learn what you're talking about before attempting to teach others, thanks.

He was struggling with God all his life, realizing life is meaningless and inexplicable without God, but he still rebelled, and so he never attained any true insight or wisdom and died miserable.
I don't want to refute his stupid ideas like eternal return or the Overchad or perspectivism, that would be like beating a dead-horse.

"Go, therefore, and from now on do not sin anymore."

God demands perfection. Or at least he demands that we strive for it.

I should expand on this. The OT does not associate Logos with God. This is because the OT is a Levantine tribal chronicle and prophecy, and not Greek. It is easy to assume both works refer to the same God, because that is what the authors of the NT intended, but it is not true. YHWH is the jealous god of the Israelites, an Iron Age deity responsible for their victories and forsaking them in defeat. The God of the NT is an unknowable, a Greek concept of love sitting on the mercy seat, hidden behind a cloud. To bring it back on-topic, this NT God is the highest good (in the Platonic sense) and it offered itself for Man. If Man will hear.

You LARPers are ignoring Christ's sacrifice and message of love by propagating the old Jewish eye-for-an-eye theology. The one the Church fathers tried to stamp out by retconning Jesus into the messiah, who (fittingly) was killed by the Jewish mob and Sanhedrin. The same mob that let Barrabas go. Point being we are not perfect, but Christ wants us to be perfect. As his Father in heaven is perfect. (There's that Plato again.)

Agreed.

>Actually it was called /agape/ and its usage is well documented
agape is not the nebulous, hippie-love-without-exception you identified with modern tolerance.
Agape is what I described previously: "willing the good of the other in accord with God's laws". Period. I'm not obliged to tolerate faggotry, heretics and sinful degenerates, I'm obliged to educate, correct and denounce their ways and lifestyles.

>money lenders were beat, but were not day-of-the-roped, however.
and from a modernist perspective that would be "hateful" behavior not "tolerant". From a christian perspective it was righteous.

>They were corrupting the Logos, as you are doing.
How am I corrupting the Logos??

>Completely misinterpretation. NT exists on top of the OT because the Hellenic Jews who wrote it intended to destroy the old tribal bullshit / messiah prophecy by replacing it, by giving it a proper ending. Christ was the messiah.
Again more gnostic idiocy. God of the OT is God of the NT. The prophecies were fulfilled by Christ and the religion took on a universal form, open to all and this was prefigured in the OT.
Christ wasn't teaching greek philosophy anyone who says this isn't familiar with Christianity or how greek philosophy works.
There are not two Gods, the bad OT God and the good NT God. You are so misguided on so many issues.

>literally just skimmed the wikipedia article
Hint: utilitarians are the arch-nemesis of Marx and Marx-ists, which seems to be what you're vaguely strawmanning.

>agape is not the nebulous, hippie-love-without-exception you identified with modern tolerance.
Again, you are wrong. As I said, it's well documented. Even wikipedia breaks it down for you by quoting the RSV:

>You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven...

>Matthew 5:43-46

>How am I corrupting the Logos??
Logos meaning speech or message -- that is, in a Christian sense, the message of the Holy Spirit as expressed in Jesus' life, then Christ and the Father -- THIS Logos. The message itself is immutable, it is written. But you are sharing your misguided understanding with others. This new 'Logos' is not Christ's, it is yours. And homie don't play that.

>There are not two Gods, the bad OT God and the good NT God.
Yes, actually, there are. Just as you have made a false Logos that views estrangement as a virtue, the Jews still have their own God YHWH. If you disagree with me, why don't you go to a local Synagogue and ask them why they aren't worshipping Christ.

You kids really surprise me.

>The OT does not associate Logos with God.
Logos is word or reason. God created the world in the OT through his Logos/Word,.

>hurr I can't conceive of the highest Good dispensing punishment and justice against the wicked, thus the OT God was some sort of aberration and really mean!!!
lmfao, nu-male theology.

>You LARPers are ignoring Christ's sacrifice and message of love by propagating the old Jewish eye-for-an-eye theology
you already admitted Christ whipped money lenders for besmirching the Logos. And this is while he was on his mission of mercy...So much for his hippie tolerance, as for other heretics and deceivers he said: "It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."
So be careful how much nonsense you spread online...

> As his Father in heaven is perfect. (There's that Plato again.)
God being perfect is nothing unique to the NT or Christs message. It was there in the OT all along.

>This new 'Logos' is not Christ's, it is yours. And homie don't play that.
>So be careful how much nonsense you spread online...

Precisely my point, pseud.

Also I want to remind you of this post.

>laughing_Christian_girls.jpg
>good is a function of pleasure
>satisfying the biggest mobs pleasure is the greatest good

>Jesus' death was literally for the greatest good, and it was demanded by the mob

JS Mill vindicated. Anonymous Catholic posters who favor estrangement over atonement BTFO.

>>You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven...
Love your enemy = will what is good for them according to God's law. Or pray for them to change and repent. Love is not a sentimental tolerance or emotional attachment for the other, it's doing what is good for them. Sometimes this means whipping them and running them out of a holy site. Sometimes it means raining fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is good for a sinner to be rebuked and corrected. It is good for the evil to be tamed and exorcised, not encouraged or tolerated.
"Tolerate" in the modern sense means to condone or put-up with someone's sins and heresies and accept them as "diversity" or "alternate lifetyles" via relativistic morality and some vague idea of equality. Christ did not teach anything of this sort.
This is anathema to Christianity. If a person teaches heresies and promotes sin or commits evil actions we are not obliged to "tolerate" them or to even greet them or welcome them.

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 1:10-11

> If you disagree with me, why don't you go to a local Synagogue and ask them why they aren't worshipping Christ.
Because they are talmudics influenced by satan, misguided and foolish and blinded by pride.
"but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,"

>But you are sharing your misguided understanding with others. This new 'Logos' is not Christ's, it is yours
Christ quoted the OT prophets, he confirmed their veracity. Christ fulfilled the OT prophecies. Yet you claim that the God the OT prophets spoke of is some sort of demiurge, big bad meanie? Stop goofing around.
And you call me a corrupter of the Word? How obnoxious.
What religion/sect do you follow? Who is your master? You previously called Christs' teachings just "dressed up greek philosophy"...why are you now trying to defend some caricature version of Christ and Christianity you just madeup in your mind?
you aren't Christian, so stop talking about what you don't know.

>Christ died because the mob demanded it
Christ gave his life willingly, no one took it from him. He was fulfilling the will of the father, not the will of the mob.
Pontius Pilate was the one feeding the mob, feeding the utility monster, and he was in error, he was the coward and fool.

What is good is what is in accord with divine law, what is true and righteous in itself, not what is pleasing to the largest mob.
JS Mill is a brainlet and hedonist.

>reading the words of Christ and saying He is wrong
>quoting John to support his political theology of exclusion and not Christ's word

>Who is your master?
Christ, thanks.

>>Christ died because the mob demanded it
>Christ gave his life willingly, no one took it from him.

Was I wrong? Did the mob not demand it? Did the Sanhedrin not demand it? Did Pilate not make it so? And was Jesus' life not taken on a cross with a Roman spear to satisfy the dogma of these hateful "holy men" who shared your conviction? He gave his life willingly, yes, but you cannot say it was not taken.

He is Christ, and you are a shmuck.

>Christ quoted the OT prophets, he confirmed their veracity. Christ fulfilled the OT prophecies.
You big, big dummy. The NT was deliberately written by Hellenic Jews, the disciples of Christ, to end the misery caused by the OT. Of course it will appeal to the OT's authority. Without this, or without the divine inspiration of the authors of the Gospels, it would have become a joke. A 2nd century Book of Mormon. And that does no one any good.

>John is only correct when he quotes Christ
>If he isn't quoting Christ he can't be trusted!!!
>le Cherry-Picking hermeneutics
it's like talking to a dumb muslim

>saying Christ is wrong
no I said your understanding of Agape is wrong.
A love that does not conform to the will of God is not good and not love.

>Exclusion is wrong
excluding truth is wrong, excluding sin and vice and heresy is good.
Those who mislead others, according to Christ as other heretics and deceivers he said: "It would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."
So stop causing yourself and others to stumble.

>Was I wrong?
The idea that Christ died simply for utilitarian reasons is wrong. Yes.

>And was Jesus' life not taken on a cross because of the dogma of these hateful "holy men" who shared your conviction?
>shared your convictions
The pharisees thought Christ was Lord and sinless and the Logos like I do?
Weird.

> The NT was deliberately written by Hellenic Jews, the disciples of Christ, to end the misery caused by the OT.

OT didn't cause any misery. People's wickedness caused misery.

>People's wickedness caused misery.
Wickedness propagated by the OT. Sacrifices, idols, numerology, rituals, superstition, so on and so forth rather than good Greek reason presented by a heroic messiah. And do you know what happened to the disciples of Epicurus and their settlements after Christianity was legalized? They became monasteries.

>The pharisees thought Christ was Lord and sinless and the Logos like I do?
No, they believed in the day of the rope. They believed in only their dogma and holding onto power. They did not love, they condemned. They killed Jesus, just as you are killing his message.

Anyway. Nice chatting with you user, but I think we've run out of road. I hope some of our readers learned something.

>Thoughts?
really enjoyed his autobiography

dont know enough about the rest to say

>Love without exception (i.e., tolerance) was absolutely the foundation of Christ's teachings.
>americans in charge of christianity
What a fucking moron.
1 Love is willing the good of the other
2 Willing the good of the other means not being tolerant of bad things they're doing
3 Love your enemies refers to private enemies not public enemies.
You're mistaking secular humanist drivel with Christianity.

>OT misery like...uh.."rituals"
what about them? can you be any more vague?
>superstition
vague, and no.

>sacrifices
animals are food
nothing you said has any substance.

>and you know this factoid about Epicurus' real estate?
yes I did know that. Monastics are superior to epicureans btw. Also has nothing to do with anything in this topic.

>No, they believed in the day of the rope.
nothing wrong with punishment if it is carried out justly. Christ whipped merchants. He preached hell for the unsaved who disobey God's laws and have no faith.

>They believed in only their dogma and holding onto power.
>hurrr dogma is mean because rules and stuff oppress me
Dogma is good when it is in accordance with Divine law. Christ preached a dogma. He made the rules on divorce stricter. he said any man who even looks at a woman with lust is already committing adultery. Christ confirmed the OT commandments. Christ confirmed punishment for the wicked: hellfire, gnashing of teeth, darkness, etc.

>I hope some of our readers learned something.
If I wanted to learn about Islam and Muhammad I would talk to a real muslim, not a modernist agnostic who twists religion and history to fit his liberal ideologies.

I tried explaining this to him. He's literally retarded and pozzed.

The Gospels even teach us to "exclude" or "not-tolerate" our family members if they cause us to stumble on Christs' path.

"Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be My disciple."

>I tried explaining this to him. He's literally retarded and pozzed.
To be honest, I don't think he's actually a moron. Like most people, he's been thoroughly indoctrinated into secular humanism, which is the de facto religion of first world countries. Like a pesant in the 15th century wouldn't have been able to think there's anything but christianity, he can't understand that there's something other than his liberal human right tolerant nonsense.
He probably thinks discrimination is inherently wrong or that tolerance is inherently good. There's really no point in discussing with these people unless it's a 1 on 1 thing, privately, IRL.

10/10 quality bait my man I must return to refute it but just this once.

>He preached hell for the unsaved
Don't you know, user, that salvation (or hell) are immanent?

2Cor 6:
1As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. 2For he says,
“In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.

>he said any man who even looks at a woman with lust is already committing adultery
Pic related. He was warning against the bad kinds of love that are not agape, not writing moral law. That is a later misinterpretation which you have adopted.

You are mistaking Christianity for a religion tied to your own ethnic tradition and values.

>He probably thinks discrimination is inherently wrong
>who twists religion and history to fit his liberal ideologies.
I voted for Trump you silly UK fucks. And I think discrimination IS wrong, and against Christ's teachings. Affirimative action is discrimination, just like Jim Crow was discrimination. Discrimination cuts both ways, and is unfair to someone in the end. That's all moot though since we have separation of church and state in my glorious country. Christ said love. I love. I did not receive his grace in vain. You may continue in your personal hell, or climb out. I have shown you the way.

I've heard he was particularly ill after have a pint of shandy

>You are mistaking Christianity for a religion tied to your own ethnic tradition and values.
There are almost two thousand years of christian tradition backing what I'm saying.The kind of Christianity you're spouting look eerily similar to secular humanist dogma. The kind of Christianity you're spouting only started getting popular after secular humanist dogma became prevalent in society. I'm going out on a limb here and state that maybe, just maybe, the one who is distorting christianity because he's been influenced by non-christian thinkers is you. Of course you will not accept it because of reasons I've already explained in my previous post.
>I voted for Trump
Trump is a liberal, you retard. Liberalism includes both the conservative and the progressive strains of it. Liberalism is about certain beliefs like human rights, representative democracy, secularism and free markets.
>uk
I'm not from the UK.
>discrimination IS wrong
See? I was right, the usual talking points of liberalism.
>Christ said love
Christ didn't say "love" because the english language didn't exist. He said something else, like nobody said "the word" but they said something else. These terms have been well defined and understood millennia ago, and their definitions for all these millennia have been completely different from your own, which is coincidentally identical to what secular humanism preaches.

>The kind of Christianity you're spouting look eerily similar to secular humanist dogma. The kind of Christianity you're spouting only started getting popular after secular humanist dogma became prevalent in society.

Just a warning, the poster you are replying to has a schizophrenic approach to Christianity. On one hand he approves of some of Christs' teachings but not all. He thinks the OT God is evil and mean, so Hellenic Jews wrote the NT to soften him up. He said Jesus teachings are just dressed up Greek philosophy. He'll quote Jesus or the apostles when it's convenient and fits his agenda, but when I quoted 2 John 1:10-11 he doubted the authenticity of the verse because it was too exclusive...
He thinks dogma is inherently bad and leads to unjustified "day-of-the-rope" happenings. So anyone with strong convictions and principles has a "dogma" and thus is like the pharisees who killed Christ. He thinks christian love means universal tolerance for all ala 1960s hippie movements.

just a heads up.

By the way you never answered my question.
What religion/sect/philosophy do you follow? Who is your master? What do you believe in theologically? Who determines right and wrong? Do good and evil change over time?
I want to know what secular liberal humanists who distort religion believe in.

Do you only love yourself inasmuch as you will the good? This is the gospel of Satan. The deadened obedience of the word of the Law as the Pharisees taught, not the love of God.

>Matthew 22:36-40:
>‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.’

1. "You should love your neighbour as yourself".

>Matthew 5:43-44:
>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

2. "You should love your enemy as you love your neighbour (i.e. as yourself).

Christ is quite explicit on this point. As he says, it is the greatest commandment.

>Christ is quite explicit on this point. As he says, it is the greatest commandment.
Yes, it is the greatest commandment to wanting the good of others with all your soul, heart and mind, including private enemies and neighbors.
It doesn't mean "dude like don't judge maaaan" or "be tolerant of evil".

>Yes, it is the greatest commandment to wanting the good of others with all your soul, heart and mind, including private enemies and neighbors.

As Christ teaches, this formula is a deadened, mechanical obedience to an abstract Law, not a true love of God through man.

Luke 10:33:
But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity.
Luke 10:36-7:
Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

To love your enemies, as the Samaritan did, is to love them with mercy and pity.

As for judging:

Matthew 7:1-6:
“Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

>literally basic bitch liberal christianity tier arguments
Wow who would have thought.
>As Christ teaches, this formula is a deadened, mechanical obedience to an abstract Law
No, you don't understand what love means in christianity. You do understand what it means in the secular humanist heresy you're following but that's not christianity.
>as for judging
Yeah, so judging is perfectly fine as long as the one making the judgment is fine with the idea of being judged himself. So, nothing wrong with judging.

Pleasure is not what defines good.

And popular opinion does not define good.

>Do you only love yourself inasmuch as you will the good?
>This is the gospel of Satan.

Our self-love should be ready to discipline ourselves when we are in error:
"But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." 1 Cor 9:27 ESV

Loving our neighbor means doing them good, good that is in accord with God's law. There is no other good than this.
Loving your neighbor doesn't mean turning a blind eye to their deeds and words and just tolerating them unconditionally. That shows you don't care about them or their soul.

Jesus and the apostles rebuked sinners and called them to repentance; Jesus called the Pharisees liars, sons of the devil, a brood of vipers. Strong insults. Jesus whipped merchants for sacrilege. Did he show the pharisees and merchants your liberalized version of tolerant "love"? No, he showed a righteous love, a love aimed at what is good.

> The deadened obedience of the word of the Law

The pharisees substituted their own law for God's law. The pharisees created their own oral tradition not based on God's laws but was meant to puff themselves up.

When the rich man asked Jesus what must he do to inherit eternal life, Jesus first response was: "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”…
Commandments are divine dogmas, they are not relativistic sentiments.

>>‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?’ He said to him, ‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart...
Loving God entails a desire to keep his commandments, keep his dogmas, do his will, to not offend him. Jesus emphasized this point when he said: "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

And John reiterates this point, defining what Christina love means: "And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it" 2 John 6.

A great guy who stood up for individuality and warned of the dangers of democracy and government intervention.

Of course I like the chap, I'm not a communist faggot.

>freedom is being able to buy and sell what you want without much government intervention
lmao, jewish economists are sweet.

>By the way you never answered my question.
I did not, you are not ready for the answers. But someone else may be.

>What religion/sect/philosophy do you follow?
Christianity, duh. My understanding of Christ is purer than yours; less tainted by thousands of years of politics. I have studied the One God starting with Plato, Proclus, and Plotinus, then passing to Justin Martyr, Augustine, and Scripture. The idol the ignorant laity call God is a figure little removed from the YHWH of the wayward Israelites. I follow the unknowable, which expressed itself through Christ (and others) as it expresses itself in me and you.

>Who is your master?
God, as transmitted through the Heavenly Father. That is to say: the Highest Good, in the Platonic sense. Jesus may have existed, or he may have been the main character of a brilliant Hellenic retcon to fulfill and quash the Jewish messiah prophecy. The story of his life is possibly the first philosophical novel. Christ was not a person, he was a spirit - an emanation of the goodness on Earth. Arguments or heresies over Christ's physical substance do not interest me; in fact they prove the persecutors did not understand him.

>What do you believe in theologically?
I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And I believe in Christ, begotten of his divine substance.

>Who determines right and wrong?
We do. It is part of our inheritance, our original sin. Are you sure you've read the Bible?

>Do good and evil change over time?
Does humanity change over time?

>I want to know what secular liberal humanists who distort religion believe in.
I am not secular. I am just a mortal sinner, waiting for release from Sense-Perception and a reunion with God in death. If I had to call myself something it would be a Platonist. Or a deist. I believe your way of thinking will only perpetuate Man's suffering. Your bilious ignorance is the reason Christ's message exists. Praise God.

Good is actually defined in the dictionary, dumbass.

Oxford English Dictionary
good, adj.

1. To be desired or approved of.
1.1 Pleasing and welcome.
1.2 Showing approval.

2. Having the required qualities; of a high standard.
2.1 Skilled at doing or dealing with a specified thing.
2.2 Healthy, strong, or well.
2.3 Useful, advantageous, or beneficial in effect.
2.4 Appropriate to a particular purpose.
2.5 (of language) with correct grammar and pronunciation.
2.6 Strictly adhering to or fulfilling all the principles of a particular religion or cause.

3. Possessing or displaying moral virtue.
3.1 Showing kindness.
3.2 Obedient to rules or conventions.
3.3 Used to address or refer to people in a courteous, patronizing, or ironic way.
3.4 Commanding respect.
3.5 Belonging or relating to a high social class.

4. Giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying.
4.1 Pleasant to look at; attractive.
4.2 (of clothes) smart and suitable for formal wear.

boom. you're blown the fuck out. come at me with an argument, i dare you.

notice how the definitions of "moral virtue" and "giving pleasure" are separate

And like I said at the start (), to whom does language belong? I'll give you a hint, it's the same person as the dictionary.

The public. You and I. Words are defined by their usage, and dictionaries are updated accordingly. Full stop. If you can't write clearly enough to express yourself, maybe you should think on it.

Yes, and as per my last post some certain people need to be more precise in using their language if they want to be in big boy arguments. It's not my problem they can't write.

>I'm Christian, duh.
>Jesus may have existed, or he may have been the main character of a brilliant Hellenic retcon to fulfill and quash the Jewish messiah prophecy.
> Christ was not a person, he was a spirit - an emanation of the goodness on Earth.

All this heresy, and new-age mumbo jumbo; Justin Martyr and Augustine and the Apostles and the early Church fathers would utterly reject your nonsense. Don't LARP as a Christian, it's dishonest and you should be ashamed.

>>Who determines right and wrong?
>>We do
Wrong answer.

>If I had to call myself something it would be a Platonist. Or a deist. I believe your way of thinking will only perpetuate Man's suffering. Your bilious ignorance is the reason Christ's message exists. Praise God.

"I'm a Christian, but I'm not a Christian and I reject Christ and distort his teachings and cherry-pick what suits my relativist, humanist deist philosophy....but anyway, let me tell you about REAL Christianity..."
Lord have mercy on your confused, seemingly schizophrenic mind.

>
>>John is only correct when he quotes Christ
>>If he isn't quoting Christ he can't be trusted!!!
Not him, but this is true though. I'm not a Johnian, I'm a Christian.

And going by the Bible, the will of God for the gentiles is not the retributive justice of the OT, but neverending love, with leading by example, that turns people to the right path.

Excluding sin, vice and heresy is the opposite of good - sinners must be shown the error of their ways by Christian, benevolent love combined with people leading by example to show them a better life. Excluding sinners leads to excluding yourself - don't be a hypocrite.

The will of the Father,going by the Bible, is to save as many people as possible, to give eternal life to all. That's pleasing the mob

>all these quotes taken out of context with no reference to who they're referring to or even to who's saying them
Sad

How do you know jesus meant that when he said love your neighbour? Or he meant specifically private enemies rather than public?

Jesus was sinless so was able to perform retributive justice, but even still he overwhelmingly employed peaceful love rather than violence.

>dude my definitions are true because they've been used for a long time even though the understanding of words is fundamentally impacted by the culture those words are said in, whether that's a more secular humanist culture or something older, and all cultures can cause a divergence from the intended Gospel
>dude even though there have been conflicts over words and Christian doctrine has been more nebulous and ill defined in the past I know surely everybody in the past agreed on my definition of jesus' teachings, rather than them just carrying out love in the way early Christians understood it personally in their far more brutal cultures lmao

The OT God is undeniably more jealous, wrathful and essentially less loving, than the NT god

And the commandments are to love God, and to love your neighbour. Peaceful, tolerant love is the only possible, non-hypocritical path unless you are a perfect, sinless divine entity.

>heresy
>new-age mumbo jumbo
>Wrong answer.
No, I am correct. Since it seems you are either trolling or proving you haven't actually read the Bible, read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil

Like I said. We do. Disobeying God and discerning Good from Evil is not only the root of all Mankind's moral dilemmas, it is literally the cause of the Fall. The allegory that portrays all existential crises. My answer is not only correct, it matches Augustine's analysis.

>Don't LARP as a Christian, it's dishonest and you should be ashamed.

Like I said hours ago: Please, educate yourself before pretending to speak from authority. Now I really am done with entertaining your backwards understanding. I'll be praying for you.

dictionary definitions don't always coincide with what philosophers are talking about

also do you honestly think that human beings do everything in order to get pleasure and avoid pain?

>everything

>>John is only correct when he quotes Christ
>>If he isn't quoting Christ he can't be trusted!!!
>>Not him, but this is true though. I'm not a Johnian, I'm a Christian.

You're neither. Even protestants aren't this heretical and naive.
If John can't be trusted to give correct teachings why would you trust him quoting Jesus? This is literally how dumb muslims cherry-pick the bible to suit their narrative.

>The OT God is undeniably more jealous, wrathful and essentially less loving, than the NT god
Gnosic heresy.
And no he's not, he continually gives the Israelites second and third chances and sends multiple prophets to correct and help them and they keep messing up and worshiping idols and ignoring what is good and true. He always taught mercy and peace and forgiveness.
in the OT God allowed Moses to give Israelites easy divorces. Jesus made divorce harder, stricter. Jesus said that simply looking at a woman with lust is equivalent to adultery.. He also emphasized the nature of eternal hell in more detail than it was in the OT. He said not one dot of God's moral law is to be changed or altered, he said to keep the commandments and do God's will, otherwise you do not have faith, you will be cut off his branch and cast into the fire.

>And the commandments are to love God
Christian love can't be separated from God's moral order.
And John reiterates this point, defining what Christina love means: "And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it" 2 John 6.

>I'll be praying for you
>I'm a deist
>I'm Christian
>Christ probably didn't even exist or was a ghost or something
>Christ just preached Greek philosophy anyway, his sacrifice was just a symbol
>OT God is evil
>I read Justin Martyr but totally disagree with him
>morality is relative you know, things change, human nature evolves
>Love means tolerating everyone and just going with the flow
>having strict dogmas is like old-fashioned and bigoted
>I'm a Platonist...sometimes

Your prayers are vanity and hypocrisy, and your views are an amalgamation of nonsense.

>OT God
>He always taught mercy and peace and forgiveness.

Tell that to the firstborns of the Egyptians. You're a fraud.

>dude let me decide your religion for you by throwung charged buzzwords at you
No
There is no reason John couldn't be entirely faithful to jesus and, to the best of his abilities, record Jesus' teachings, while also having his own opinions that were neither expressly condoned or forbidden by jesus. I'm not positing he was secretly trying to sabotage the whole religion before it even started - he was an apostle, after all

>he continually gives the israelites second and third chances
And then resorts to punishment. He doesn't forgive them seventy x seven times, and often not even seven times, but only until his anger is maxed. He did not teach the neverending love and forgiveness of the new covenant.
>He always taught mercy, peace and forgiveness
>literally who are the Canaanites

Strictly speaking, Jesus didn't say adultery was still forbidden, interpreting his words in reference to the OT law serves to refine the teachings the Pharisees should have been teaching to be truly righteous, as it reinforced the common theme of his disdain for hypocrisy

>muh moral law
Lmao, God doesn't give the commandments as discrete packages you can pick and choose when you're deciding what is superceded. Jesus doesn't say moral law, unless you've got some new translation I haven't seen. He just says law. And that law is the only two commandments that bind Christians - love God, then love your neighbours.

I'm not entirely sure what you think that verse is supposed to support, but whatever you think it does, I'm mildly sure it doesn't.

>Jesus just taught love and peace and being nice ;)
>I'm Christian
>Jesus probably didn't exist or was just a ghost

But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.…

>Jesus wanted everyone to get along, love your neighbor means tolerating them and being nice ;)

"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:26

>Jesus tolerated everyone and was nice to everyone, not mean like OT God

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape the sentence of hell?"

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

>dogmas are bigoted and old fashioned, Christ did away with LAWS, now we just have to LOVE everyone and that means TOLERANCE you old-fashioned bigot!

"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”…

>I'm Christian...but I'm not.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.

Nearly all of your assertions in this thread have been wrong.

>agape isn't in the Bible
gets shown that it certainly is
>OT God was the Logos (hahaha)
proven incorrect
>OT God taught forgiveness
proven massively incorrect
>Augustine would reject the symbolism of the Fall
proven incorrect
>God only loves those who obey the Law
OT God? Sure. NT God: No. Walk in his ways, or don't, be loved anyway.

You're a really dense motherfucker, you know that? You think you know the truth but you have demonstrated that you do not understand Jesus' words. Love is the only commandment. To deny this is to forget the face of your Father, to deny this is to be separated from God, to deny this is to place your own law before God's. And deny you have, for ten hours. I really hope you don't have children.

>Strictly speaking, Jesus didn't say adultery was still forbidden,

Lord have mercy.
He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness..." Matthew 19:18 ESV
"You shall not commit adultery"

> And that law is the only two commandments that bind Christians - love God, then love your neighbours.

Loving God means keeping his commandments. Loving yourself means submitting to God's commandments, being virtuous, being humble and disciplined. Loving your neighbor means guiding him when he's in error, helping him when he's in need, rebuking him when he speaks evil, and potentially chasing him out of temples with whips if he commits sacrilege.

>>dude let me decide your religion for you by throwung charged buzzwords
>Christ was not a person, he was a spirit
>Jesus may have existed, or he may be not
>maybe he was a Hellenic Jew invention
>I'm a Christian, don't challenge me....

You're not Christian in the traditional orthodox or even modern protestant sense. You're some sort of new-age "anything goes" Christian who cherry-picks the bible, twisting Christ and scripture to fit your very secular, relativistic, deistic hippie presumptions.
It's like someone claiming to be a Muslim but denying Muhammad is the final prophet, eating pig because whatever dogmas are just bigoted and oudated, and rejecting Hadiths and parts of the Quran he finds "oppressive" because you think your feelings are the ultimate arbiter of truth....You're lost, confused, you aren't even a Platonist or whatever you think you are.

You're still searching, and that's fine, but don't pretend you've figured anything out, don't label yourself a "Christian" the word has a meaning; all you've made is a buffet of random beliefs you're trying to smash together, it isn't working. It's sad.

>guiding him when he's in error
>rebuking him when he speaks evil

hey bruh imma need you to check the mote in your eye real quick

and you never answered this user

>>agape isn't in the Bible
Never said that, I said you don't understand the word, and are confusing it with sentimental tolerance.

>OT God was the Logos
God created the world via the Logos (Word) in the OT. Genesis confirms this. The NT reiterates the point, read John 1.

>Augustine would reject the symbolism of the Fall
Every Christian would reject your "Phantom Christ" and "Christ was a literary invention" hypothesis, right there you show your hypocrisy.

>>God only loves those who obey the Law
Never said that. God loves all and wants all to come to the truth. Even those who end up in hell. Even those he whips and drives out of his temples. Even those he insults and berates and calls "liars, vipers and sons of the devil." Even those he burns in Sodom and Gamorrah for being gays and degenerates. He loves all, i.e he wants what is good for them, he wants them to repent and to be purified.

The Good is not just merciful it is also just and righteous.

>Strictly speaking, Jesus didn't say adultery was still forbidden,
>Are you sure you've read the Bible?
> And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery...." Matthew 19:18 ESV

lmao.

Please continue this discussion christcucks it's very interesting

>Every Christian would reject your "Phantom Christ" and "Christ was a literary invention" hypothesis, right there you show your hypocrisy.

Well no shit. It's a heresy called Docetism and the Church only stamped that view out by killing people until there were none of them left. Just ignorant cattle who worship Catholic idols, give tithes, and birth new right-believing taxpayers. You cannot reconcile the atrocities of the Church with the teaching of Christ. Don't even try.

>mote/plank metaphor means no one can teach or correct their neighbors, we just have to remain silent and tolerate everything bro, blaze it 420

How about you read the whole context "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
It's not a general injunction against correcting people, it's about overcoming the sin in ourselves, before we correct others.

>God created the world via the Logos (Word) in the OT. Genesis confirms this. The NT reiterates the point, read John 1.

How is this passage describing the incarnation of Jesus not evidence for my interpretation that the NT is merely a retroactive continuity for the OT? It would certainly lend authority to a work to have it reiterate the old beliefs it is supposed to replace while also establishing the metaphysical similarities of the Man with the Creator. This metaphor of Man:God::Son:Father is used throughout the NT. How do you not understand textual analysis?

>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

>It's a heresy called Docetism and the Church only stamped that view out by killing people until there were none of them left

I'm Orthodox not Catholic. Docetism died because it lost popularity, early Church fathers wrote against it quite easily, not because they were killed off.
That heresy came up early, when Christianity was weak and still persecuted by Roman authorities.

> the NT is merely a retroactive continuity for the OT
>apostles just fabricated the NT and used the OT to gain credibility
>oh I'm Christian, don't you dare doubt my religion!!!
>Jesus? Who?? not sure if he existed, and it doesn't matter...
>just have sentimental tolerance towards everyone ;)
>good and evil? those are relative and irrelevant, probably based on dogmas or something

so Jesus read the OT and thought it would be cool to act out all the prophecies and get crucified.
Oh I forgot you're not sure who Jesus was, if he even existed, or if he was a phantom or person. You're a nu-Christian. Of the cuck variety.

Still the only economic system that has lifted the masses out of poverty since the dawn of man.

>You're a nu-Christian. Of the cuck variety.
Really? I thought I was a Docetist heretic and Platonist of the 4th century variety.

Youre not a Platonist. Platonism posits an objective, transcendent moral order. Its agape was "conforming to that transcendent Good" not "tolerating your neighbors and being nice ;)" no relativism, or humanism here. You're confused. Simply confused.

>good can only be experienced through Christ
Well, we've gotten exactly nowhere.

I'll see you at the Rapture, user. I'll be the one waving at you from the golden escalator riding up to Heaven.

>post about Platonism
>"good can only be experienced through Christ"
Who are you quoting?

> I'll be the one waving at you from the golden escalator riding up to Heaven.

"But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven.
Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son."

Good luck with that dream.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good“. Psalm 14:1
"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Genesis 3:6
Man alone cannot be good, only through knowing God and what He knows to be good can man do good. Men have senses that fall to deception, either by carnal desires or the snares of Satan.
>I'll see you at the Rapture, user. I'll be the one waving at you from the golden escalator riding up to Heaven.
What arrogance. God hates Pride more than any other sin, and He makes it clear several times in the Bible that He will humble the proud and make the weak rulers over the strong.

>Who are you quoting?
I was mocking the caricature of me you have invented.