RE: Pat Robertson says it's ok to ignore parts of the Bible.
July 10, 2012 at 9:32 am
(This post was last modified: July 10, 2012 at 9:37 am by Drich.)
(July 10, 2012 at 2:45 am)LastPoet Wrote: Keep spinning Drich, any day now, you'll be writing your own bible. There really is no shame or honesty left in an apologist.
What's been spun? The fact that modern soceity has rewritten biblical terms to mean evil and reched things so people who do not want anything to do with God feel they have the moral high ground, no moraly obligated to turn their backs on God??
If countering the culture's properganda is what you have identified as spinning, then know I hope to make it my life's work.
(July 10, 2012 at 8:48 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: And this Pat Robertson is someone of significance??
Not really, but the subject matter is.
(July 10, 2012 at 9:30 am)frankiej Wrote:(July 10, 2012 at 9:28 am)Drich Wrote: But I can point to the reason for the slavery was not for the expressed purpose as a sex toy, as you would have everyone believe. For unattached unsanctioned sex was still a sin. Marriage was the reason for 'barter.' Something that still goes on today between certain families Today.
That doesn't make it right.
Just because you would do it differently It doesn't make it wrong. Up until a 100 or so years ago marrying for 'love' was a fools sentiment reserved for the simply minded or the very poor. Without rules governing the 'trade' of women as brides all sorts of really bad things would have happened. that is why one of the rules stated that no one could be traded outside of the tribe/faith. Meaning all who were traded were subject to the rule and protection of God.
