SilverDoge wrote:The old "Christian gotcha game" is on. This is where a person takes some of their pet issues, finds a Biblical quote (usually out of context) that would offend our modern day senses, and claim victory over all of Christianity.
Not that at all. I wasn't the one who brought the bible into the discussion, and this quote you claimed to be from me mostly wasn't:
SilverDoge wrote:jcz1 wrote:Wait a minute. That's old testament. Remember what you told me about the old testament? So if I believe this part of the OT, then should I also believe the part about stoning your kids to death when they talk back? Also, the OT clearly documents over 2.8 million people directly killed by god. So what parts do I believe? Just the supernatural stuff? This is so confusing.
If we're going to get an explanation of why we should ignore some stuff, here's some more stuff that could use some 'splainin':
To clarify, I posted a simple picture of a strange-looking creature which science has determined to be very old. Dave decided he needed to throw some bible stuff in as a response, claiming the age is only a few thousand years old. Randy called him out on that:
MaxGravy wrote:when he posts things I believe are wacky, then I'm going to point them out.
We had a discussion a while back about the old testament telling parents to stone their children to death when they talk back. Dave said that the old testament wasn't to be taken literally, that it had been replaced by the new testament. This prompted my earlier comment since he was taking Genesis literally.
I expected Dave to explain why the "age" thing was to be taken literally while the stoning stuff wasn't, so I simply added more stuff to the list of things I assume he doesn't take literally. That explanation never came, only some "junk science" as Randy called it.