The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Jesster]

Also, one point I forgot to add to my last post (and am only doing as a separate post because of the short window of time we have to edit posts has passed): I am not in the habit of blocking users I don't like. I have only done this once before, and on another forum and I am fairly certain it was before I even joined AF (Sadly, it's gone). I have decided to block Huggy Bear because, simply put, his bizarre claims and his transparent attempts to claim victory no longer interesting or even amusing to me and I'd prefer to wash my hands of him completely.

At this point, I can see why that was necessary.

[Huggy Bear]

[Nihilist Virus]

Really?

First of all Nihilist Virus did post from the NIV (specifically from the 27th verse) which used the word "miscarriage", show me which word in the KJV is equivalent to miscarriage and I'll address it.

secondly scripture had nothing to do with abortion. It was a test administered to women whose husbands accused them of adultery but had no proof, a pregnancy would sorta be proof don't you think?

Not what I'm talking about. U fkn ignored my responses to it. Fkn sad man.

Talk about having an imagination...

Man, you just keep dodging my questions.  You made no real attempt to answer Numbers 5 other than to seemingly say, "Well, it uses the phrase 'her thigh will rot' and instead of thinking about what that means I'll just pretend it's not addressing abortion whatsoever regardless of what the NIV says."

Meanwhile, I said this on the other page:

The text in the KJV says that her "thigh will rot." Given that it says if she's cleared of charges she will be able to procreate, this implies that if she's guilty she will become barren.

If a woman is already preggers and then is cursed so that she will never be able to bear children, what do you think happens to the precious little bundle of joy in her womb? Are you going to tell me that this passage, which clearly describes itself as being about marital jealousy, actually means to say that the woman will be allowed to give birth to her current child (provided she's preggers) even though the child is the result of adultery?

Pages and pages and pages of u ignoring that question. IDGAF if u even answer anymore fuck u and your games.

[LadyForCamus]

You can always win an argument when you're dishonest I guess.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm also waiting for him to address these points which he conveniently ignored (bold mine):

So...God decides to make the universe and people, because...he's bored? Lonely? Drunk with power?

Did god not know until the moment he decided to create the world how humans would turn out? Because if he didn't; if there was ever a "time" when God thought things would go a certain a way and they turned out differently than he originally intended, there goes "omniscient" right out the window.

Oh, and along with it goes "omnipotent" as well. If God had an ideal; a vision for humanity, but failed to execute his creation properly (considering what a fucking disappointment we are, according to him) then...he screwed up. He screwed up twice in fact, if you want to consider that 'flood' mulligan he afforded himself. So...Not perfect, and not all powerful.

Now please, Christians, I know your fingers are just itching to type the words "free will". But don't. I know, it's hard. You're taught to spit that phrase out any time the logic of your God is questioned, but the fact is the existence of free will makes no difference. You can't on the one hand say God knew we would fuck it all up because 'omniscience', but then turn around and say we fell from God's grace because 'free will'.

Free will was always part of the grand plan, right? So, God basically rigged humans with a wild card (on purpose) and then blamed us when the wild card backfired on him.God is in every way like Victor Frankenstein. We never asked to be created. But the real kicker is that instead of owning up to the fact that he fucked up by creating a species of unintelligible, immoral miscreants, he decides to trick us into thinking that it's all our fault we can never be good enough. He sets up this contrived and thinly veiled "test" of righteousness that he knows full well Adam and Eve cannot not pass, and then uses the result to lay life-long blame, guilt, and shame onto all of humanity.

[Whateverist]

Maybe the mistake is trying to have an argument over the facts regarding something we don't find factual but which our disputant does. Internal inconsistencies are nothing new and nothing to be alarmed by if you're enjoying the show. Maybe it is better to just say "enjoy your bible then" and be done with it.

I had lost track of this thread and didn't recall posting in it before. I hardly recognize it now.

[LadyForCamus]

I think the mistake is in having the charity to consider that a person may have at least one descent, semi-honest reason to believe in their myths...

[Huggy Bear]

Really?

Not what I'm talking about. U fkn ignored my responses to it.  Fkn sad man.

Man, you just keep dodging my questions.  You made no real attempt to answer Numbers 5 other than to seemingly say, "Well, it uses the phrase 'her thigh will rot' and instead of thinking about what that means I'll just pretend it's not addressing abortion whatsoever regardless of what the NIV says."

Meanwhile, I said this on the other page:

The text in the KJV says that her "thigh will rot." Given that it says if she's cleared of charges she will be able to procreate, this implies that if she's guilty she will become barren.

If a woman is already preggers and then is cursed so that she will never be able to bear children, what do you think happens to the precious little bundle of joy in her womb? Are you going to tell me that this passage, which clearly describes itself as being about marital jealousy, actually means to say that the woman will be allowed to give birth to her current child (provided she's preggers) even though the child is the result of adultery?

Pages and pages and pages of u ignoring that question. IDGAF if u even answer anymore fuck u and your games.

No dummy, you're the one playing the games...

You're the one that upon receiving an answer to your original question, tries to restructure the question into some sort of a "gotcha" (apparently your booty still hurts over me calling you out for not knowing what ellipses are, since you brought it up earlier in this thread), the problem is you're not clever enough; and since you clearly aren't willing to have a serious debate, I don't waste my time answering your nonsense.

For example...

Then enough water to flood the earth up to the highest mountains came from nowhere in particular (to which it would later return), and somehow the freshwater fish survived despite their environments being poisonously contaminated with brine.

Once again, HOW did the freshwater fish survive?

I know the frustration.  I'm STILL waiting for him to explain how freshwater fish survived Noah's flood.

STILL waiting for Huggy74 to explain to me how freshwater fish survived the flood.

Still going on about the fish?

It's called adapting to ones environment. There are plenty of fish able to survive in both saltwater AND fresh water (salmon for example).

So who's to say that the fish we have now didn't evolve from fish that could survive in both environments, and over time, adapted to their respective environments.

You see, a smart person would have known that there are species of fish capable of living in both fresh and salt water, and wouldn't have focused on such a dumb question to begin with. I gave you plenty of opportunities to chill, but nope, you have to insist on being made to look a fool.

On the issue of abortion, I already had explained why that scripture had nothing to do with abortion, but then you come up with a hypothetical scenario. I'm not interested in answering hypothetical questions as it relates to the Bible, either it's in the Bible or it's not.

So until you can find anyplace in the Bible where an abortion was caused using the method you described, you'll just have to consider the case closed.

[Huggy Bear]

You can always win an argument when you're dishonest I guess.

In what way was I being dishonest?


Also If you're concerned about honesty/dishonesty why haven't you called out Rev. Rye for quoting the Talmud as a source, then all of the sudden claiming that very same source is not credible when it no longer agrees with his argument?

Thought you were against cherry picking.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see no reason to argue you -out- of an even more ridiculous position than that a girl had a talk with a dragon about a piece of fruit.  I've only got one question......where are all these human-dragon hybrids today?