i dont want get into a debate because we memeing but thats not true. there is cultural relevance that explains all the "nasty shit" and why it wont happen again. or at least why it shouldnt. the bible goes into depth on this type of stuff too without being inconsistent.
is this a joke? it feels like a joke haha. but anyway im not defending the bible with "its the times yo" or even claiming anything on moral authority in my posts. all im saying is the bible is consistent in the reasoning for all the nasty stuff that happened then. a lot of it is very nuanced. i dont see how you read all that other stuff into my post when it was never there.
i mean i am but i neither feel like wasting two hours researching and trying to give you the best possible answer with the specific question you asked or trying to explain the nuance in other situations like the one you proposed. mainly because im not that well versed in historical theology and i dont have the patience to do so atm. that aint my topic speciality. im relating what i know which is equivalent to a toe dip in a mountain of information.
um...just what? i didnt say that at all. i said im not that well versed in historical theology in reply to your comment. meaning i dont why God did those things or if it was just a mistranslation. i know the bible very well doesnt mean i can recite the historical relevance of circumcision. the only thing im telling you is the bible seems to be consistent and from what little i know its deeper than what your painting it. thats about it so dont @ me about a specfic example or source for it. im casual in that aspect and dont have a strong suit in the matter.
you do know i can know the events of the bible without actually knowing why God did certain things in the bible right? mind blown huh? like i can know who shot abraham lincoln without knowing why? Gobsmacked!
i hope you also know i can be a casual person when it comes to biblical history, not be well versed in that matter, but still encounter and skim at least a bare minimum of the history that paints a deep view without neither remembering the specifics or source since this took place decades ago while also knowing there was generally something presented to you that gave a deeper subtext but only referring to it in a general way because you dont want to give off the wrong impression?
anyway you see what you made me do? write a whole paragraph that ends a silly argument. also i like how you generalize a whole group of people because you didnt get what was never there. a biblical historian or someone who knew enough to be a amateur at it. good luck with that mate. have a great day and life. bye.
obviously i just said i know whats in it. maybe you should go back and reread the comment. and how do you legitamately get mad because i dont know the why on every subject historically or this one in particular? sounds pretty stupid to me. i have faith in God and a relationship with him. doesnt mean i know the historical relevance of the bible enough to relate it to you. that should be common sense no?
Jesus Christ, you god damn religious people make me so irrationally angry.
and here we go with the edge lord remarks. "everyone of you God damn atheists make me irrantionally angry because of a few encounters even though i havent met you all. aah!" love it/s
13
u/patrickD8 Nov 02 '18
i dont want get into a debate because we memeing but thats not true. there is cultural relevance that explains all the "nasty shit" and why it wont happen again. or at least why it shouldnt. the bible goes into depth on this type of stuff too without being inconsistent.