- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fathers of daughters
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:43 am to Azkiger
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:43 am to Azkiger
quote:
The fact that I haven't seen Christians stoning people? Or ignoring the dietary/clothing commandments? Being against slavery?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Yet you think you REALLY do, don't you? At any rate, carry on showing your complete and total mastery about something you actually know nothing whatsoever about.
0
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:44 am to bfniii
quote:
which demonstrates your hermeneutical ignorance. of course you don't want to mention that because it destroys your pitiful point
Quoting the specific area of the Bible I'm critiquing is demonstrating my hermenutical ignorance?
quote:
someone volunteering to take your punishment does not mean you weren't held accountable. i'm sorry you don't understand that.
I asked you a specific question, which you did not answer. So I'll ask again.
How are you being held accountable for your own actions if Jesus takes the punishment for you?
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:44 am to Azkiger
quote:i just did. did you not read my post? i looked at the surrounding passages taken together in the context of their socio-historical culture. also, you have been presented with numerous other passages that are relevant. the fact that you are unwilling to assimilate them all shows that you are either uninterested or incapable of genuine discussion on the subject you feel free to critique. the real question is why this doesn't bother you
Please lay out the perspectives and context that makes the stoning of non-virgin daughters a just prescription
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:45 am to bfniii
quote:
I asked a simple question.
Not honestly, you know what my gripe is. You're just the annoying sort of apologist that feels the need to respond to every sentence with something.
You've responded to at least a dozen of my posts, assuming you've read every word in those posts you should know what my critique is.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:48 am to bfniii
quote:
i just did. did you not read my post? i looked at the surrounding passages taken together in the context of their socio-historical culture.
No, you just suggested that if I had done that I'd see why my critique about stoning non-virgins is misplaced. Can you make your case or not?
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:54 am to Azkiger
quote:
birth control...
They had birth control back then.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:56 am to Rougarou13
quote:
They had birth control back then.
"So insert whatever your identity is for democrat, and swap out the 500 genders with anything that we have today that was not the norm 2,000 years ago."
You never said "didn't exist" you simply said "was not the norm". Birth control was not the norm 2000 years ago.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 11:56 am to BamaAtl
quote:
But still frick the gays, right?
No that's what you democrats do
Posted on 3/8/18 at 12:31 pm to Azkiger
quote:the quoting is not the problem. the understanding is. multiple people have helped you in this regard but you're more interested in casting aspersions and being recalcitrant than you are in developing a mature interpretation
Quoting the specific area of the Bible I'm critiquing is demonstrating my hermenutical ignorance?
quote:i did answer but you don't want to understand. you are failing to distinguish between sentence and punishment. the sentence of the guilty person always remains. however, punishment (not sentence) is commuted through the salvific death of Christ for those who have genuinely accepted that free gift of grace, those who have been radically transformed into the likeness of Christ. i can't explain it any more clearly than that. if you aren't understanding, perhaps it's not an intellectual issue but a matter of where your heart is.
I asked you a specific question, which you did not answer
Posted on 3/8/18 at 12:33 pm to Azkiger
quote:i don't understand why you won't answer a simple question
Not honestly, you know what my gripe is
quote:again, you get to throw out all sorts of bullcrap but i'm not allowed to respond with corrections of your misinterpretations. got it.
You're just the annoying sort of apologist that feels the need to respond to every sentence with something
Posted on 3/8/18 at 12:34 pm to bfniii
quote:
the quoting is not the problem. the understanding is. multiple people have helped you in this regard but you're more interested in casting aspersions and being recalcitrant than you are in developing a mature interpretation
I have not seen a single person try to justify why its appropriate to stone non-virgin daughters, could you point me to all those posts?
Posted on 3/8/18 at 12:34 pm to Azkiger
quote:your first sentence explains that i made the case. then your second sentence says i didn't make the case. which is it?
No, you just suggested that if I had done that I'd see why my critique about stoning non-virgins is misplaced. Can you make your case or not?
Posted on 3/8/18 at 12:36 pm to Azkiger
quote:i most certainly did. would you like me to repeat it or would you rather just go back and read the post that you say doesn't exist?
I have not seen a single person try to justify why its appropriate to stone non-virgin daughters
and you still haven't established your moral authority to question it in the first place. i wonder why
Posted on 3/8/18 at 12:38 pm to bfniii
quote:
your first sentence explains that i made the case. then your second sentence says i didn't make the case. which is it?
Ah, I see the problem.
I don't think that simply saying "you need to read the chapters before and after to see why your wrong" is "making a case".
I see that as being intellectually lazy. I could just as easily tell you to read the chapters and verses surrounding this and you'd see that I'm exactly right. Would that be presenting a case to you? Because if so I'll just save myself a lot of time and just stick to simplistic replies like that.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 12:40 pm to bfniii
quote:
would you like me to repeat it
Please repeat it.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 12:41 pm to Azkiger
Y'all two need to get a fricking room or sumn.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 1:52 pm to Azkiger
Touché
Posted on 3/8/18 at 4:35 pm to Azkiger
quote:you are right, this is a problem because that's a time honored, correct way to approach sound interpretation. since you aren't doing that, it's no wonder you are making the dumb statements that you are
I don't think that simply saying "you need to read the chapters before and after to see why your wrong" is "making a case".
quote:but you aren't right because i cited those very verses which show that you are not taking them into context and it is hampering your interpretation. it's just not as difficult as you are making it out to be
I could just as easily tell you to read the chapters and verses surrounding this and you'd see that I'm exactly right
quote:i find it interesting that you failed to mention any other passages in chapter 22. if you had, you might have had a better perspective on the particular passage you are critiquing. and this is usually concomitant with an attitude of analyzing the outcome apart from the purpose. the outcome is the punishment. the purpose is the effort to engender parental care in preserving modesty and purity in women (v20-22) and men (v13-19)
Please repeat it
and you STILL have not explained how you occupy a morally superior position in questioning God's instructions to them.
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:42 pm to bfniii
quote:
i find it interesting that you failed to mention any other passages in chapter 22. if you had, you might have had a better perspective on the particular passage you are critiquing. and this is usually concomitant with an attitude of analyzing the outcome apart from the purpose. the outcome is the punishment. the purpose is the effort to engender parental care in preserving modesty and purity in women (v20-22) and men (v13-19)
I "failed" to mention any other passages because another poster seemingly had no idea that this was a practice in the Old Testament and so I quoted the appropriate scripture. Why go into any more detail? All I needed to do was show that such a law existed.
I'm perfectly aware the purpose behind this law/practice and it doesn't change my opinion of it nor do I understand why it would change anyone's opinion of it. While I can see why society would push for sexual purity, I cannot understand why it would come at the cost of people's lives. Put another way, I place more value on a woman's life over whether or not she was a virgin on her wedding night. Which do you value more? A woman's own life or whether or not she's a virgin on her wedding night?
quote:
and you STILL have not explained how you occupy a morally superior position in questioning God's instructions to them.
Well, for starters, something as unreliable as bleeding during a female's first intercourse wouldn't be the sole deciding factor in a capital punishment crime.
Many women do not bleed during their first intercourse due to various reasons (not born with a hymen, hymen broke earlier in life during non-sexual activities like heavy lifting or horseback riding, etc.). Under God's perfect law many innocent women would have been stoned to death.
This post was edited on 3/8/18 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 3/8/18 at 5:43 pm to anc
quote:
Fathers of daughters
Son of a son
Son of a son
Son of a son of a sailor
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News