4 ms·

> that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are

by Chris2048 3y ago

> that Biblical condemnation of homosexuality isn’t as worthwhile to rationalize away to you as it is to defend the Bible indicating that female virgins who are “raped” must marry their “rapist”. I'm not sure what you imply by "rationalize away" - the source of the bible doesn't say what you claim it does. Rather than answer to that point you psychoanalyse me; what demons are you fighting? Am I not allowed to correct you unless you first determine in the "right" side? Sorry, I don't play that game - take it or leave it. > I don’t think there is ever a circumstance in which it is moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist Great! neither does the bible. Ask Howard Long why his committee decided to put that in their version. > Personally, I would have written something like.. you understand god didn't write the bible?

synetic 3y ago
…the source of the bible doesn't say what you claim it does.. You are being daft. I don’t claim it says this. The Christian experts who made the NIV claim it. I know of no Christian who thinks the Bible (not translations of it) is not the divinely inspired written word of God. Meaning, that God wrote it. Not literally jotting down the word but divinely guiding the authors. That is, the words, meaning, and intent come from Him. You are being deliberately obtuse. I’m not going to respond anymore to you. And if you think at any point I psychoanalyzed you then you don’t know what that word really means.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  Great, flip the table, not my loss. I'm not the one being obtuse.