Yes they take a cherry picking literal non-interprative stance and hold to the long popularized dogmatic stance that it is wrong. They eisegesis pick out only supporting scriptures with none of the syntax of storry surrounding them. For instance, if I said in yor last post you said: the bible says do sin
technically you said those words, but they're out of sequence and hold none of their original meaning to the point of riduclousness.
I take the verse in their original language and do comparitive studies and look at the context of the paragraph they are written in.
Their other arguements which are many, are all much more flawed and not based on any real supstantiable proof, like when people say "homosexuality isn't natural" .. well that may be true for them as an individual, but as a species that theory doesn't hold water.
technically you said those words, but they're out of sequence and hold none of their original meaning to the point of riduclousness.
I take the verse in their original language and do comparitive studies and look at the context of the paragraph they are written in.
Their other arguements which are many, are all much more flawed and not based on any real supstantiable proof, like when people say "homosexuality isn't natural" .. well that may be true for them as an individual, but as a species that theory doesn't hold water.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
