dheddle
Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007
|
Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 16 2009,09:53) | Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 16 2009,09:27) | FL, what is a "biblical christian"? Is this your definition who believes in a literal interpretation of every word in the bible? so what do you call us who are not literalists? Oh wait, i know the answer: hell bound, spawns of Satan, evilutionists. |
FL is a hypocrite even when it comes to taking the Bible literally. One thread where this came up, he essentially said it was alright not to kill people who disobey the many, many laws in the Book of Deuteronomy that demand death as punishment, i.e., eating milk with meat, eating shellfish, eating pork, wearing fabrics of mixed thread, working on Saturday, being a fussy or unruly child, etc.
If he were a genuine Biblical literalist, he would be making demands that goat breeders breed striped goats by showing the copulating animals striped sticks, in addition to demanding death to people who violate the laws of Deuteronomy. |
Actually he would not. The most you could demand of him is that he acknowledged that at one time the laws of a now non-existent nation demanded capital punishment for many crimes, and that at one time Jacob bred fancy livestock by the method you described. As a literalist he could still argue, convincingly if he knows how, that those laws are null and void, even given the jot and tittle passage, and that Jacob's genetic engineering was accomplished by one-time divine intervention to further God's redemptive plan. (Now whether Jacob knew it or not remains unanswered.)
He could argue it--not me. That is, I've made the exegetical argument a gazillion times and am not interested in making it again.
-------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|