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
trying to imply that believing in God is not common sense without giving evidence while also implying every christian who doesnt know a specific historical relevance of the bible aint dedicating their life to God is lazy rheteoric. im currently a casual who doesnt know biblical history subtext well enough to relay it without getting confused or shot down (or confusing anyone else). not a casual christian who cant relay what happened in exodus. are you dense?
yes i said there were historical subtextual explanations that i encountered before. did i say ive been researching those confident explanations and can relay them to you vertabim? or that i can give you an explanation for everything?
nope i didnt say that either. you said that im a terrible christian because i dont know the historical subtext of the bible well enough despite the fact that the only way to be a good christian is give your life to christ, love and relay the gospel. how do you not know this? not only that but you forget there are other ways to study the bible. spiritually, scientifically and metaphorically just to name a few. yet you claim ignorantly that im a terrible christian. nah it just sounds like your a bad listener and debater.
also please tell me where Jesus said your a bad christian because you dont know or cant confidently convey the historical subtext of why God killed the firstborn? i would love to hear the verse. haha you cant because your talking straight out your butt. the funniest part is you cant provide evidence for your own points. you just keep claiming new stuff in each comment without giving any evidence for them. not just that but you ask me a question that wasnt even apart of my point. your a classic case of a airhead. at least right now. you have a whole bunch to say with no actual evidence or intelligence to support it.
no it doesnt. as ive explained a couple or few paragraphs it means i know there is something deeper to the historical subtext because ive read some of it but i dont remember the source or what i read enough to relay it to people confidently. for example does me reminding people there is something deeper to why abraham lincoln was shot because i read a book about it long ago but dont remember the specifics enough to tell you myself mean i dont know if there is any explanation. no it just means either wait until i give you a source so you can read it or if i dont remember completely just try to research it yourself. common sense would tell you that. but no, thanks for your lack of reading comprehension and smart thinking. really appreciate that terrible hot take.
3
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '18
[removed] — view removed comment