(September 11, 2013 at 12:29 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(September 11, 2013 at 12:12 pm)catfish Wrote: WOW, so much strawman failure in such a short rant.
Care to offer missluckie some support with her bare assertion by trying to deflect from her lies and adding a few of your own?
All it takes is one verse to support her made-up, delusional bullshit.

Fluff, deflection and denial, you're too predictable dumbass.

It was an exercise in making up a story, something you Christians are very familiar with. And, yeah, I'm lumping you in with the other Christians because you are one; I've been informed about this little fact by other members, so if you deny it then either a) you're a liar or b) they're lying to me. Which is it? You can't both be lying.

Also, if you are a Christian, then there's a 99% chance that you actually believe in god. If you don't believe in god, then I hope you realize what that makes you. (I just got a good, yet scary, thought of catfish as an atheist.)

Next, if you are a Christian that believes in god, then you are making a claim by association. This claim is that god exists; this is the ultimate claim for which you must provide evidence and demonstrate as true. If you cannot do this, then you cannot even begin to surmise what god is or isn't, what his holy book actually says, or what others are saying about their own crazy delusional claims. Define your god, define your religion, give forth some evidence, and proceed. If you do not, then you can definitely fuck off.

You're an expert at trying to turn the tables but a dumbass for making the attempt with me.
Care to support any of your (or her's) bare assertions or are you still going to give me a fluff piece to read?

(September 10, 2013 at 10:37 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Because he's taking the text in the Bible at face value he's dense? Do we need to explain special pleading to you yet again, GC?

He's not taking the verses at face value, He like you leave your reasoning in your back pocket when it comes to scripture.

GC

I am taking it at face value. It says that if you have a disobedient child, then take that child to the priests, explain to them that your child is disobedient, and then take them to the city gates so they may be stoned to death. How is that not a passage saying to kill unruly children like you claimed?

Just because I don't have to jump through a hundred mental hoops to be able to believe that a passage in the bible doesn't mean what it means doesn't mean that I don't use reasoning when reading that passage. For some reason Christians have the hardest time accepting literal meanings of passages in the bible when those passages are inconveniently embarrassing.

(September 11, 2013 at 3:44 pm)Godschild Wrote: He's not taking the verses at face value, He like you leave your reasoning in your back pocket when it comes to scripture.

GC

By which you mean, of course, we come to a conclusion about scripture that isn't perfectly glowing or, worse, *gasp* disagrees with you!

(September 11, 2013 at 9:08 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(September 10, 2013 at 10:26 pm)Godschild Wrote: You're as dense as lead, I've explain those verses several times over the last three years, go look them up.

I don't have time to search all the threads to find this. Either back up your assertion or admit that you're wrong. In simple terms, please explain how that passage in Deuteronomy is not saying to kill your disobedient children. If you can't do that here, then I'll just take that as an admission that you're wrong yet again.

I'm not taking the time to write this out again, even if I did you would call some kind of foul, if you do not go looking for it I take it you do not care about the argument, just winning.

GC

---

(September 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: I am taking it at face value. It says that if you have a disobedient child, then take that child to the priests, explain to them that your child is disobedient, and then take them to the city gates so they may be stoned to death. How is that not a passage saying to kill unruly children like you claimed?

Just because I don't have to jump through a hundred mental hoops to be able to believe that a passage in the bible doesn't mean what it means doesn't mean that I don't use reasoning when reading that passage. For some reason Christians have the hardest time accepting literal meanings of passages in the bible when those passages are inconveniently embarrassing.

You've jumped through those hoops many times and again you do the same, aren't you tired of being so stupid as to not be able to see the simple and obvious truth of those verses.

GC

So basically you're suggesting that he search through all 3500+ of your posts to find one you are thinking of, rather than defend your assertion and you think that's reasonable.

Holy needles in haystacks, Batman.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So basically you're suggesting that he search through all 3500+ of your posts to find one you are thinking of, rather than defend your assertion and you think that's reasonable.

Holy needles in haystacks, Batman.

I've posted an explanation several times, besides I'm tired of people not listening, and getting told I'm wrong without any proof.

GC

Quote:I am taking it at face value. It says that if you have a disobedient child, then take that child to the priests, explain to them that your child is disobedient, and then take them to the city gates so they may be stoned to death. How is that not a passage saying to kill unruly children like you claimed?

"Child" in the sense of son or daughter is correct, but this isn't referring to young children, as it says that the child is a drunkard.

Second, note who makes the determination - the person's own parents. If you're so bad that your own parents turn you over to be stoned, you just might deserve it.

ETA: Interestingly, this is the same chapter which forbids battlefield rape and regulates marriage of captives, but somehow you guys always miss that part on your way to the part about stoning children.

(September 11, 2013 at 4:34 pm)John V Wrote: "Child" in the sense of son or daughter is correct, but this isn't referring to young children, as it says that the child is a drunkard.

Choosing beer over breasts - that sure ain't my kid!