Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Thatcherite
You say "NO" in response to what you characterize as as strawman interpretation of those verses on my part.

Interpretation.... that's the clue that you are building a strawman. Now, go pound

And, I did not butt into your discussion. You ended it remember. I have demonstrated your disingenuous "discussion" of the Bible. And the discussion proceeded on, because you chose to keep asking questions that I answered not to your liking. I told you when you responded where to go if you sincerely wanted answers. You don't. So I also think you are hilarious.

383 posted on 05/04/2005 7:38:04 AM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies ]


To: AndrewC
Interpretation.... that's the clue that you are building a strawman.

Doubtless that Delphic utterance meant something to you.

The problem isn't that you answer questions "not to my liking". It is that your answers are evasions and irrelevancies and non-answers. I am no closer to understanding how you interpret those verses than I was when we began, because you keep dragging in stuff like McVeigh (definitely irrelevant) and "sons" vs "children" (relevance not demonstrated or explained) rather than what how you think Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God should obey those verses.

384 posted on 05/04/2005 7:57:42 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson