Kudos to our theist members

[fr0d0]

As for the Bible saying other than what it reads, we don't believe what the Bible says, and are therefore not forced to agree with the obvious bias inherent in the narrative. You're asserting that there are correct and incorrect ways to interpret the Bible, which is another assertion you can't justify.

You don't have to believe it to be able to read the words mate. You just have to be able to read. "Ryan says he raped a woman yesterday in the post above" amounts to pretty much what you're saying. It's just nonsense.

I can and do justify correct interpretation. You need to try to be as accurate as possible. It's not beyond our capabilities to piece together the cultural influences and language used to make accurate summations. Or do you think that these ancient people were superior in intelligence?

---

You're saying you refuse to think Ryan. That's what I mean. Where do we go from there? There is no conversation.

I asked you to ask a question about something. You asked a new and unrelated question so diverting the subject.
Me: what's 1 + 1?
You: what's not 1 + 1?
Me: everything but the answer. What's 1 + 1?

I didn't say he "does" judge fairly (a point of deeper investigation, but we can't get that far). I said he "can". Do you accept that point or not?

God doesn't need to prove anything to you for you to accept or deny the above logical point. Support your reasoning and let's move on.

[Ryantology]

You don't have to believe it to be able to read the words mate. You just have to be able to read. "Ryan says he raped a woman yesterday in the post above" amounts to pretty much what you're saying. It's just nonsense.

But, if it said "Ryan says he took a man's wife as spoils given to him by God", you say "That's not rape". Even though it's describing a situation which is obviously rape. If the post said "fr0d0 killed an infant on orders from God", you would attempt to show how the infant was evil and deserved to die. Because you refuse to examine this from an angle which does not correlate to your dogma. You can't step outside of your own assumptions long enough to even recognize that there is more than one valid interpretation.

I can and do justify correct interpretation. You need to try to be as accurate as possible. It's not beyond our capabilities to piece together the cultural influences and language used to make accurate summations. Or do you think that these ancient people were superior in intelligence?

No, you do not justify a correct interpretation because you do not demonstrate that a correct interpretation is possible, objectively. You do as every other Christian on here does: interpret the Bible so that it reflects your opinions.

You're saying you refuse to think Ryan. That's what I mean. Where do we go from there? There is no conversation.

I am saying that genocide is never acceptable, especially when carried out by a being who could solve his problems non-violently. This is an opinion nobody would ever question outside of the context of God. You are making a special exception for your God and demanding that I justify why that should not be allowed. It is you who deflects. You justify your special exception. Then, dialogue can commence.

I didn't say he "does" judge fairly (a point of deeper investigation, but we can't get that far). I said he "can". Do you accept that point or not?

Of course I do, because it's irrelevant whether or not he can.

God doesn't need to prove anything to you for you to accept or deny the above logical point. Support your reasoning and let's move on.

God needs to prove to me that the logical premises are sound. All I have is you saying but refusing to demonstrate that they are. That's not enough. You don't simply get to attribute your justification to 'logic' and expect that's sufficient.

[Something completely different]

Whither you accept it or not there are many different governments in this world and none of them are sovereign. Sovereignty belongs to the King of the Universe, that being God the creator of all things.

Bullshit. This is simply you reinterpreting a word to fit into your narrow view of the world. Want to know what sovereinty is? Pick up a fucking dictonary and stop annoying people with your deliberate illiteracy!

Yep, you could have added the names of many people ideas or what not, yet they all pale in the sovereignty of God, the God who will judge all.

Again showing you own ignorance to everyone since the very statement you made is again totalitarian and can have the word god replaced with any dictator.
You fail to grasp the concept that authority is something one has to earn and be trusted with with, which is probably why you want your theocratic and totalitarian state of mind is so cemented that you would probably never give it up.