Subject:
|
Re: God's Nature
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:54:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
617 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
Let’s make things nice and sparkling clear shall we?
You said: “Our God is not the same God of people who murder women and children
in His name. If you call that close-minded, so be it.”
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=22287
I showed that the first statement is false on it’s face, by quoting from the OT
story of the conquest! http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=22290 The
second statement is one that I think means that you acknowledge yourself as a
bigot and are even smug in this posture.
You would appear to claim that my OT quotes are somehow irrelevant, because of
some special interpretation or something. The fact remains that one of the
central myths of your faith is that of a “Promised land” won through
genocide! That’s not my fault, it’s your sacred text! I happen to be
openminded enough to be on very intimate terms with that text. I find, more
often than not, that people claiming themselves as “true believers” and true
adherents of the Bible often have no idea about the ideas and statements the
Bible actually contains.
Getting things back to square one: please show me how given the existence of the
Book of the Conquest, you thought you could make the above statement and not get
called on it?
BTW, blinkered can be defined as: “subjective and limited, as in viewpoint or
perception.” Now which one of us does that truly describe? Aren’t you
“close-minded” and “so be it”? Generally, you do little here but show your own
woefully limited viewpoint. How does my quoting you from your own holy text make
me a bigot? I did nothing but claim a literal translation for a passage that is
repetitiously clear as to its meaning -- no special knowledge or extensive
reading is required to understand it. The sad truth is that you haven’t earned
the right to call me names just because I am the one that is pointing out your
miserably myopic worldview, or the inconsistencies of your faith.
How am I to perceive you as anything but painfully ignorant or bigoted in these
discussons when you have shown that you either didn’t know about the quoted
passages; or alternatively, that you knew but that you are still willing to make
such crazy statements because you are one: “who is strongly partial to his own
group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”?
That’s a dictionary definition of a bigot!
As usual, you have done nothing to forward your end of the argument. You just
make indefensible statements and unwarranted attacks.
How about the simple addmission that you were wrong? Or failing that -- where is
your alternative interpretation of those passages from Joshua? What is the
secret, “revealed,” and “loving” meaning behind words like:
?And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young
and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.?
???
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: God's Nature
|
| (...) Blinkered Bigot! The Bible is not a factual document; it is a book of faith! (...) Hypocrite! Everyone get that? The Bible means whatever (the atheist) Richard Marchetti says it means. (...) The Bible, especially the OT, is anything but (...) (21 years ago, 15-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
