Voss said:
StSanta, the logic of your argument is inconsistent with the context of the presented text. The context of my text being how easily things are misrepresented and how 'true' our own perception of things are are aptly and consistently illustrated by my examples.
They are in no way attempts to seriously interpret the bible; I leave such exercise for the sheep whpo follow their shepherd. Instead, they're, as I've stated, illustrations on how easily one can cast grave shadows on the Untrue Way, using its own holy text.
Enlightenment, on the subjects you have chosen, will not be forthcoming from this group.Ah, you're prophezising, yes? How very Christian of you
. Think I'll just hang out and hear more about the hooters thing.
Furthermore, I find your presentation to be
particularly biased. I suspect you truly do not believe what you have stated, but if you do... shame on you.I *am* biased. I portray it in a particular way on purpose. And I don't necessarily agree with what I think, and almost certainly not with what I write
. Not always. That's why I find it amusing to write.
What you call inconsistencies are nothing of the kind. Rather, it is your own lack of faith that proliferates misunderstanding. Study the word more than you have and understanding may yet be accomplished.I've studied the bible well enough. The role of women was explicitly made clear to me by some Jehovas Witnesses whom I invited in (to their dismay).
Inconsistencies there are loads of - and it's quite natural for a book that really is a collection of works separated by time, geography and culture.
Admittedly, many are inconsistent on the surface, but not when looked deeper into. On the other hand, many are just downright true, snd suggesting my lack of faith or 'understanding' of the bible is lacking does little in the way of solving the inconsistencies; rather, it's a logical fallacy, known as an ad hominem attack. And only atheists are allowed to make those.
In other words, I *might* be an ignorant bastard that's up to no good, but that doesn't change the value of my points
My point, quite basically, was that 'tis easy to view any religion as utterly out of whack with time and monstrous in nature, if *one is inclined to do so*.
Which I am. Of course.
.
I wish you good luck. Same to you bro
.
