Need I go on, cherry picking the Bible to back a fallacious arguement is as old as the hills
er.. I can only say +1 here Tynan, maybe not with the fallacious bit, I've never been into blowjobs.
This massive response you've sent, unless you are a one-time-Southern-evangleist-turned-loather, surely isn't all flicked to and referenced by you on the spot. there are thousands of websites refuting Christianity and Islam etc. using these techniques. There are several people on Speakers' Corner every Sunday who do this. And they don't want to listen to anyone point out things like "context". You basically load up on gleaned selective quotes whose isolation distorts the fuller picture and hope that the bombardment of the other person with these will unsettle them as they scrabble for purchase in the face of seemingly iron-clad arguments. In reality - and this is why I said it wasn't the time or place, and that I was reluctant to have the conv - is that replying to this is a really lengthy process as it involves many pages of context.
I know the new testament fairly well as I was beaten with it regularly as a child (not really) and I reject a lot of what you say here - they are massively edited and don't consitute intelligent interpretation, just a fitting of words to a standpoint. It is how it is; I assure you these are reappropriated and not fully quoted.
On the flip side, I found a website a few months ago which claimed to be Christian which gave quotes and interpretations of the bible in order to justify three-in-a-beds in marriage, anal sex, bondage etc. - hilarious and disturbing and pitiful in so many ways that i was exhausted trying to work through what it could all mean. It remains one of the most enigmatic things I've ever found on the web. Thoroughly enjoyable, though.
er.. I can only say +1 here Tynan, maybe not with the fallacious bit, I've never been into blowjobs.
This massive response you've sent, unless you are a one-time-Southern-evangleist-turned-loather, surely isn't all flicked to and referenced by you on the spot. there are thousands of websites refuting Christianity and Islam etc. using these techniques. There are several people on Speakers' Corner every Sunday who do this. And they don't want to listen to anyone point out things like "context". You basically load up on gleaned selective quotes whose isolation distorts the fuller picture and hope that the bombardment of the other person with these will unsettle them as they scrabble for purchase in the face of seemingly iron-clad arguments. In reality - and this is why I said it wasn't the time or place, and that I was reluctant to have the conv - is that replying to this is a really lengthy process as it involves many pages of context.
I know the new testament fairly well as I was beaten with it regularly as a child (not really) and I reject a lot of what you say here - they are massively edited and don't consitute intelligent interpretation, just a fitting of words to a standpoint. It is how it is; I assure you these are reappropriated and not fully quoted.
On the flip side, I found a website a few months ago which claimed to be Christian which gave quotes and interpretations of the bible in order to justify three-in-a-beds in marriage, anal sex, bondage etc. - hilarious and disturbing and pitiful in so many ways that i was exhausted trying to work through what it could all mean. It remains one of the most enigmatic things I've ever found on the web. Thoroughly enjoyable, though.