3) I never once said "the entirety of Church tradition of bashing them Christ-Killing Jews didn't happen." Please don't put words in my mouth. Quite to the contrary, I said, "I am more than willing to admit to the wrongs of Christians." But I denied the implication that every person who claims to be Christian actually is so by mere fiat. I brought the discussion back to the LRA and observed that you "have yet to provide…a single shred of evidence that the LRA deserves the label Christian independent of their mere profession of some elements of Christian belief." I can admit that there were Christians who deludedly thought they could kill Jews while simultaneously exhibiting Paul's "fruits of the Spirit" (though I have no idea how killing Jews can be described in terms of "love, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, and self control"). But that doesn't mean this is analogous to the LRA, which does not adhere to orthodox Christian doctrine. Once again, I ask: Why should anyone, Christian or non-Christian alike, think the LRA is Christian? What links them, doctrinally, to the historic church? Do they accept the Nicene creed? the Trinity? the Divinity of Christ? the two greatest commandments of the Torah? Again, it seems Kony has not publicly ever mentioned Christ, and focuses not on the commandments of the New Testament but instead on the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament. So aside from their mere self-identification as Christians (and you yourself admit you go off of lived belief and not mere self-ascription), why do you hold that the LRA are Christians?
4) The group of Pharisees Jesus encountered in the NT ≠ Jews in general.
5) Yes, and I addressed the LRA in §3 in this and my previous comment; you have yet to respond to those comments. As for the relevance of Christianity's good side, it is relevant in the context of your reductive (rather than merely selective) treatment of the "spirit of Christianity" (see the latest §1 in comment above). As for Romans 2, how it it anti-Jewish to say that to be a true Jew you must practice your Jewish faith inwardly and believe in the God-man who is, hmm, a Jew! And no, you're not denying my evidence, you're ignoring it (whereas I've been consistently responding to the various scriptures you've brought to the table). You're ignoring passages that would, if followed, preclude bigoted anti-semitic action. Paul says very sternly not to cause the Jews to stumble, not to be arrogant toward them. He speaks of peace between Jews and Gentiles. And the New Testament never condones violence against nonbelievers. Also, there's a difference between arguing against the Jews concerning their very existence or their ethnicity, which the New Testament never does, versus being critical of Jewish theology. There's nothing anti-semitic about saying that Jewish theology, to be fully consistent, must accept a Jewish Messiah to is foreshadowed in the Jewish Scriptures.
no subject
4) The group of Pharisees Jesus encountered in the NT ≠ Jews in general.
5) Yes, and I addressed the LRA in §3 in this and my previous comment; you have yet to respond to those comments. As for the relevance of Christianity's good side, it is relevant in the context of your reductive (rather than merely selective) treatment of the "spirit of Christianity" (see the latest §1 in comment above). As for Romans 2, how it it anti-Jewish to say that to be a true Jew you must practice your Jewish faith inwardly and believe in the God-man who is, hmm, a Jew! And no, you're not denying my evidence, you're ignoring it (whereas I've been consistently responding to the various scriptures you've brought to the table). You're ignoring passages that would, if followed, preclude bigoted anti-semitic action. Paul says very sternly not to cause the Jews to stumble, not to be arrogant toward them. He speaks of peace between Jews and Gentiles. And the New Testament never condones violence against nonbelievers. Also, there's a difference between arguing against the Jews concerning their very existence or their ethnicity, which the New Testament never does, versus being critical of Jewish theology. There's nothing anti-semitic about saying that Jewish theology, to be fully consistent, must accept a Jewish Messiah to is foreshadowed in the Jewish Scriptures.