(September 28, 2009 at 2:18 am)Arcanus Wrote: First, yes he "supports" the Old Testament. And yet, how can you respond to this without knowing the sense in which he supports it?That's what I'm asking.
Quote:Second, the dictionaries I've checked don't show "support" and "condone" as being synonyms. What dictionary are you using? Or was that an intentional prevarication?I changed it to condone because you said to me before that "It depends what you meant by support".
Quote: Third, do you argue for an absolute objective morality? That is, are those events in the Old Testament considered "horrors" in an absolute, objective sense?No, I do not believe in any form of absolute objective morality. Why, do you think what I describe as the "horrors" in the OT...aren't horrors?
Quote:If you are inquiring about the criteria by which a belief is determined to be Christian or not, I've already provided that.Fair enough, but don't different believers in and followers of Christ disagree on how Christianity is defined to some extent? Or are they all within your definition? Just to clarify.
(September 27, 2009 at 7:48 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How is it decided what parts are literal or metaphorical without ever cherry-picking?
Arcanus Wrote:Biblical exegesis.
my stress is on the "ever"...can this really be done without there ever being any cherry-picking? (And you confirm my answer on the quote of yours that I'm about the quote next actually).
(September 27, 2009 at 7:48 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Do you agree with me after all, that there are Christian cherry-pickers?
Arcanus Wrote:Well of course there are! I've dealt with many myself. And so?
Well that was my entire point that was made to fr0d0 in the first place, that this entire debate has sprung from. I said that, and he said that I said it because I don't understand what Christianity is.
EvF
