Yeah, except for the fact it was meant to be taken literally...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock."

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Old testament right? Old law is no longer in place so.....

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17 Oh and... Paul says "the head of the woman is the man," meaning that the women are to be subordinate to men. 11:3 We should really take this literaly, shouldn't we?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are multiple verses stating that Jesus died for us to do many things, primarily to nullify the old law, I have no idea why the old law existed...but that's irrelevant. And yes, you're correct the man is the head if the household, am I supposed to disagree?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, you're supposed to disagree. I believe in gender equity and the word surbordinate just doesn't sound right.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's like My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Man may be the head but the woman controls the neck.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh and please, what is the context of that verse?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I honestly don't know the context. I'm just taking literally the quote I'm reading, which is exactly what's wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

you can't take something out of context literally...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because he's not taking something out of context. PS. I just LOVE how you avoid the statements about Jesus accepting the old laws. And the way you don't bother to reply about the gender inequality issue? Done like a true Conservatard. ;)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Um. Seriously? Read my comments! I said, I am not God therefore I won't intend to understand the old law. I said man is the head of the household, gender equality is something humans made up. And one last thing...conservatard? Really? How old are we?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So if you don't understand, why do you speak aboutit ? Hmm, guess I'll have to find a true Christian that actually knows something of his religion. You never said gender inequality was made up by humans; you simply did not reply to that person. Lol I was correct! You are a Conservatard. 8-)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Asdfghj. Your impossibly narrow minded! I was saying, I had already addressed that point, the latter was a clarification. Again conservatard? I refuse to argue with someone who speaks like a twelve year old. So, Nighty night kiddo.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Speaks like a twelve year old? Says the person who can't even use "you're" properly. I refuse to argue with someone who tries to act more mature but even fails at that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh, yes! My typo does make me an idiot...(even though if you scroll up you will see I have in fact used 'you're' it correctly.) When without argument, attack typos, greeeeat tactic you've got yourself.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Oh and even he admitted he didn't know the context. That's like me saying "I hate people who..." and someone coming along and saying I said I hate people. It's all about context.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Well if you think about it, you don't know the context either. Besides, who cares about context; if something is to be taken literally, then it doesn't matter the context.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes you do have to know the context! The context is of the most utmost importance! Again, I could say "I hate people who murder" and someone comes along and says, "she said she hates people" (and they leave out the last two words) well, we have two completely different truths.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Lol, says the person attacking insults. Greeeat tactic."you will see I have in fact used 'you're' it correctly". That sentence makes no sense. So not only are you "prone to typos", your grammar is off. *Sighs* You must be one of the dumbest 18 year old in America. We were clearly talking about an exact quote, so why are you giving me an analogy where you have the original quote, and then mash it up? Wtf? Did they not teach you anything in school when it comes to presenting an argument? i agree Conservatard is a harsh word, but we need it in the English language to describe people like you.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There are still debates among theologists and people who study the Bible on whether many of the stories were meant as fables - that they didn't occur, but were meant to teach a moral lesson that was relevant to the time.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sure, but there are even more who disagree with that theory considering there is no indication anything other than parables were not meant to be taken literally. Whatever though, I am not God, I've stated what I believe to be true, who am I to preach on anything?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There's a different between stating something you believe to be true, and stating it as fact. You did the latter, and are now trying to say you did the former. Wrong.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I believe it to be fact.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

So? A belief in anything, is different from fact. *Sighs* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Did you REALLY just site Wikipedia in an argument...?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Did you REALLY not notice the joke in there?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

If we were to assume you are one to believe in the magnificence and perfection of God, we can also make the assumption that you believe he is all-knowing, all-doing. So is it really that far off to believe that God made these miracles or huge events (i.e. Great Flood) If you believe God can do anything, what can't he cover the whole earth in water if he so pleased? Just a thought.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No fucking way. You just contradict your entire religion right there. If it's not supposed to be taken literally, than anybody can interpret the bible any way they want. For example, I could take "Let there be light" and believe he actually said "Cupcakes for everbody!". BTW - What was "light" back then, and was language just "created"?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Symbolism is not something you pull out of your ass. No, you don't say light= cupcakes because that is nonsensical. However, walking on water let's say could be symbolic of the godly attributes that Christ was said to have had and the rebirth of moral conduct (Love Thy Neighbor)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Some things are meant to be taken literally. For example-Jesus died and rose again. Other things are meant as symbolism. Jesus's flesh isn't actually part of the bread. We aren't cannibals. It means we share in His grace.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

stop stalking me. no one cares yet again

by Anonymous 13 years ago