Mhm. Dude, I read the bible without anyone telling me to, I studied all about the Church history, and I attended mass almost every sunday until I was in high school.
Attending mass may have been your first issue. The Roman Catholic Church has a
very specific take on the Bible and the history of Christianity, one which is frankly anti-Biblical in a number of key ways. I may be off on this, because I'm not sure if any other denominations call church services 'mass.'
I'll easily admit this is exactly the counter 'argument' I've come to expect from you people.
As evidenced way back during the Synods, the Great Schism, and even better later during the shitshow of the Protestant revolution, and now you two, your concept of 'debate' and 'canon' consists of cherry-picking what passages and interpretations best suit your standpoint at any given time, and damn everyone who points out every part in your own holy book that contradicts you (and itself). Even if it was the very words said by Jesus.
I said your position 'looks like.'
You are outright asserting I
am doing things you have no idea if I am doing or not.
The fact that you unironically claim to speak for the entirety of Christianity, as if that's even possible, also renders any of your claims and position untenable.
I did not claim to speak for the 'entirety' of Christianity, so you're putting words in my mouth here.
This is why the Church keeps losing people. Because you 'echo' everyone but Jesus. And you just can't help but do it in the most condescending way possible.
You're going to talk about condescending while you're making posts like this? Really?
You came onto this thread saying that "Jesus fell on the side of the 1984 Party on thoughtcrime, alas."
This is utter nonsense. The Party in 1984 explicitly is an institution of
secular power, something which Jesus rejected holding during His time on Earth. Further, The Party is a functional product of post-modernist ideology, not believing that such a concept as objective Truth
even exists, and it polices 'thoughtcrime' to enforce its tyrannical power over society, using force pretty indiscriminantly towards that end. They
certainly did not believe in things like grace.
Jesus delivered moral commandments,
but made no move to enforce them himself during His time on Earth, and was the literal personification of grace. He tried to persuade people to believe in the Truth, not bludgeon them into believing party lies.
The one scripture you mentioned was Jesus speaking of 'coming with a sword.'
This was a metaphorical sword, not a literal sword. And that metaphor is about how the message Jesus came with will divide people, because those who accepted his message and those who rejected would believe profoundly different and incompatible things.
And in your sheer hubris, you don't even realise it.
You owe more of your current talking points and Christian ethics to the Germanics from after the Investiture Controversy, than the Bible.
You don't even know what I believe in. I don't recall having any long exchanges on theology or doctrine with you on this site in the past, and looking at your posting history, that memory is pretty much confirmed.
You don't know what denomination(s) I have or have not been a part of, you don't know what doctrines I follow, who has or has not taught me, you don't know what history I've studied, you know
practically nothing about me, pretty much just that I said 'you're wrong about this,' and yet you immediately assert my ideology comes from very specific places?
And you accuse
others of hubris?