Why do scripter beleivers cherry pick verses

Author: CaptainSceptic ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 93
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    Example:  

    Scripter followers Claim: God's laws, are the laws of morality.

    Their Support: 10 Commandments Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21

    My retort:   Well there are lots of examples of conduct that is immoral like

    Supporting slaves:   Ephesians  6:5:  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
    Killing babies and raping woman cause your pissed off:  Isaiah 13:16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

    The Response: Either crickets or "...... you're taking it out of context.    What they really mean is. we can wordsmith whatever we want to appease our agenda.  Go away heathen"


    WHY??

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 733
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    Interestingly, it is my experience that it is those people who do not believe the scriptures that cherry pick to suit themselves. 

    Most Christians use a hermeneutic to understand how to interpret the bible. Christians generally take the view that the OT is understood through the lens of the NT and Jesus in particular.  For instance, if you were to look at the book of Acts and the story found about Peter having a dream, you would see that it is a useful tool to understand what is meant by this. In that dream, Peter saw a sheet coming down from heaven containing food - much of which Peter would have understood to be unclean. God uses this dream as a tool to understand that in Christ, God had extended his people to include Gentiles. 

    If you don't understand this hermeneutic, then you will take every verse in the OT in one way. If you understand the hermeneutic then things are distilled quite differently. Many people also understand that everything is the same from the OT to the New except where the NT has changed it based on Christ coming. But in saying this - the OT is not done away, but rather fulfilled in Christ. An example of this is the OT Mosaic law in regard to sacrifices. The laws were to continue in every generation. And so Christians believe this today - yet - since they are fulfilled in the Christ eternally, the specific sacrifices are no longer necessary. 

    It is also a rule of thumb that the OT laws are perfect in substance - and that it is the spirit of the law we are to understand and apply - not necessarily the literal letter of the law. Jesus in his sermon on the mount demonstrated this in his views on murder and adultery. For him murder was demonstrated in assault or calling someone names. Adultery included how you thought in your heart, not just in the physical doing. 

    The 10 commandments are good laws. The latter six are observed in most countries in the world today. The first four are practised in most countries as well - just that most countries typically practice these and apply them in their own culture.  

    You cherry pick cultures and time frames. After all it is only in the very modern world - that slavery has been condemned by any culture. And the facts are well established that Israel was unique in its treatment of slaves - kind and merciful to them as opposed and contrasted with every other culture for 90% of history. I also take the view that slavery being abolished and seen as immoral flows directly out of the Christian worldview based on Christ's teaching.  Furthermore there is no evidence that God ever commanded any person to rape another - and in fact condemns it - and BTW he also condemned kidnapping and human stealing.  I don't hold to the view that poetry is to be interpreted literally - it is used then as it is used today primarily in hyperbole in order to produce emotions and feelings - not to feed the reason of humanity. 

    Hence, your accusation that Christians cherry pick is incorrect and my allegation that you don't have the ability to read is more accurate. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,322
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Most Christians use a hermeneutic to understand how to interpret the bible.

    For Christian apologists to explain something hermetically ,  means  -  to  make it up as you go when caught on the back foot in an awkward embarrassing biblical dilemma. It also mean to redirect ones attention away with  biblical verses that go actually nowhere in explaining away  said awkward embarrassing biblical dilemma. But I have found the most favored tactic  of apologetic Christians is to  simply present one's own theories or even opinions as fact without supporting evidence. When all the above  fails to convince then its down to the age old veiled insults of one "not being able to read" and "understand". 
    hermeneutic
    /ˌhəːmɪˈnjuːtɪk/
    Learn to pronounce

    adjective

    1. concerning interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

    noun

    1. a method or theory of interpretation.

  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @Tradesecret
    There are many religions out there that use scripture.  The NT is not necessary for the purposes of my question.    I just used the OT demonstrably,  I am asking a question based on observation.

    Hence, your accusation that Christians cherry pick is incorrect
    I never said Christian once.   In addition, you state that no Christian has cherry-picked verses in my presence is incorrect, and something you can't know, as you have not been in my presence during those times.   You could have said I may be misinterpreting, or ask for a specific example. However, you do not.  You immediately jump to the conclusion that I am talking about Christians, and no matter what I experience I am wrong because.....

     you don't have the ability to read is more accurate. 
    ,...,,  which is you assuming that I am talking about written narrative, rather than spoken.

    You state:

    If you don't understand this hermeneutic,
    So in your words... there is no proper interpretation unless you "understand". and agree with your stated NT hermeneutic about Peter's dream.    Clearly hermeneutics is a core reason why there are 10's of thousands of Christian denominations around the world.  So your view is not the only one.

    Your entire response is assumptive and defensively focused on your individual Christian belief structure. 

    Back to my point,  and to address your Christian angle,  I was told a reason to remember, and quote verses word for word, and not try to over-interpret them.  

    John 15:7 says that having God’s Word in your heart also leads to answered prayers. It says, “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you” 

    So if you decide to respond, may I ask you please to not be defensive and attacking.  I am asking a genuine question. 
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Tradesecret
    Well said!
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @CaptainSceptic @Tradesecret

    Hence, your accusation that Christians cherry pick is incorrect
    I never said Christian once.   In addition, you state that no Christian has cherry-picked verses in my presence is incorrect, and something you can't know, as you have not been in my presence during those times.   You could have said I may be misinterpreting, or ask for a specific example. However, you do not.  You immediately jump to the conclusion that I am talking about Christians, and no matter what I experience I am wrong because.....

    What a laugh! You may not have said Christian but you specifically use the Christian Scriptures as your only reference point.


    YOU:
    Scripter followers Claim: God's laws, are the laws of morality.

    Their Support: 10 Commandments Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21

    My retort:   Well there are lots of examples of conduct that is immoral like

    Supporting slaves:   Ephesians  6:5:  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
    Killing babies and raping woman cause your pissed off:  Isaiah 13:16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

    ***

    What is more, you avoided the many pointed questions in response to the challenge you issued on morality. I truly do not believe you can demonstrate an adequate or reasonable explanation for morality other than a necessary Being - God - since without an absolute, objective, omniscient, unchanging, eternal source and reference point all you have is subjectivism and relativism. 

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    My retort:   Well there are lots of examples of conduct that is immoral like
    MY retort: And what is your standard for determining what is immoral? Is it a personal preference? Do your feelings determine right and wrong? If not, establish your standard for morality is objective and unchanging. If it is relative and changing how do you arrive at the best (always shifting and never has a concrete foundation of measurement), what everything else is compared with? If there is no best, why is what you believe good? Good in comparison to what? 

    With quantitative values, we have physical reference points, exacting tangible weights and measures to compared with. Where there are discrepancies we can measure it with the universally accepted exact measurement. With time, the world relies on Greenwich Mean time or the atomic clock as our standard of measurement. How do you measure something intangible and abstract such as morality and qualitative values? What is your ultimate measure and your ultimate reference point?
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @PGA2.0
    Invited you to a  debate about it so you can set me straight.





  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret



    Tradesecret,

    YOUR LAUGHABLE AND BIBLE TWISTING QUOTE, AGAIN: "But in saying this - the OT is not done away, but rather fulfilled in Christ. An example of this is the OT Mosaic law in regard to sacrifices. The laws were to continue in every generation. And so Christians believe this today - yet - since they are fulfilled in the Christ eternally, the specific sacrifices are no longer necessary. "

    Once again, you are vying to be the most Bible dumbfounded pseudo-christian in DEBATEART Religion forum!  You are obviously jealous that subjectively FAUXLAW holds this title at this time, therefore you have to come in with some of the most comical Bible twisting hermeneutics to date. Nice try, but no cigar!

    You, and equally Bible ignorant pseudo-christians PGA2.0,  interpret the word fulfill as bringing to an end, or superseding, or some other insidious after the fact notion or synonym for the term abolishing.  Reading comprehension 101 then states that you have Jesus saying, “I did not come to abolish the law, but to abolish it!”  H-E-L-L-O, anybody home today TRADESECRET?  Obviously not!  Foolish pseudo-christians like YOU will never cease to amaze us with your insidious bible twisting antics!

    In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes it clear that He DID NOT come to destroy, rescind, nullify or abrogate the Old Testament Laws, all 613 of them, to wit: "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18).  With these words, Jesus likened the continuance of the Mosaic 613 Laws to the permanence of heaven and earth, UNDERSTAND?!  Therefore, has Heaven and earth passed away or disappeared yet? NO IT HAS NOT! Therefore, as Jesus stated with specificity, the true Christian is to follow every jot and tittle of the 613 commanded laws of the Old Testament until the earth and heaven do pass away!  2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and your outlandish Bible ignorance is without bounds!

    Jesus' inspired word states: “In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome (1 John 5:3) The ONLY commandments at Jesus' time were the 613 commands of the Old Testament!  GET IT, HUH?


    TRADESECRET, regarding the Atheists wanting the removal of the Old Testament 10 Commandments displayed in the front of a church, a Courthouse, or a public place, when was the last time you held a vigil to stop this ungodly act, even though the removal includes your crafty and ungodly notion of Jesus allegedly fulfilling the 10 Commandments, therefore they are not to be followed anymore? GET IT?  Huh? Do you need further clarification Bible fool?


    As usual, I expect you to RUN AWAY from my post herein, like you have done ad infinitum with my other posts directed to you when you slap Jesus in the face with your blatant Bible Ignorance, so once again, go into hiding to save yourself from further embarrassment from the Brother D Thomas. Hurry, RUN AWAY! LOL!


    .


  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @CaptainSceptic


    CaptainSceptic,

    I doubt if this Bible inept pseudo-christian will debate you upon the topic at hand.  If he tries to defend the faith, like the inspired word of Jesus so states, always remember PGA2.0 is a Satanic "PRETERIST!"  This alone will embarrass PGA2.0 to biblical axioms that show his laughable belief is moot!

    The Preterist faith, being yet another DIVISION of the faith,  denies the future prophetic book of Revelation, where the Preterist movement  teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem!   The comedy of Preterism teaches that every event normally associated with the end times, Christ’s Second Coming, the Tribulation, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Final Judgment and such, HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED! HELLO? 

    PGA2.0 is easily refuted with just simple biblical axioms of Jesus' true words, that he has RAN AWAY from when I discussed the JUDEO-Christian bible with him in different threads. So, expect him too runaway from you as well, let alone, even if he takes the challenge to debate you in the first place.

     PGA2.0 represents the true meaning of being a pseudo-christian!


    .
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    You actually answered my question.

    It is funny how when I open it up to be taught, PGA2.0 will not respond.  

    Very insightful contributions.    Thanks BDT.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @CaptainSceptic

    The comment section does not appear to function on that debate. Maybe it is just me. Thus, I will respond here. 

    How badly do you want to debate this? 

    As I said before, I do not debate with a time frame of less than a week per round. That gives you more time to debate others while you wait for me to post. I have also said before, I do not debate with less than 10,000 characters although I prefer 12,000 to 15,000.

    I would like to modify your challenge heading and also get you to provide a more thorough DESCRIPTION of the scope also. 

    Suggested modification:

    "God as a necessary Being is the most reasonable explanation for morality."
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    Invited you to a  debate about it so you can set me straight.
    Btw, does that mean you will not respond to my post?

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    Regarding the debate challenge, I request another round and the BOP shared.

    R1: Opening arguments
    R2-R3: Additional arguments and rebuttals
    R4: Rebuttals and closing arguments. No new arguments.

    Also, I suggest any definitions you want to put in we do so in the Description. I have a few in mind. 
  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @PGA2.0
    How do you share a burden of proof when you first stated: 

    " I truly do not believe you can demonstrate an adequate or reasonable explanation for morality other than a necessary Being - God - since without an absolute, objective, omniscient, unchanging, eternal source and reference point all you have is subjectivism and relativism. "

    Then you stated:

    "God as a necessary Being is the most reasonable explanation for morality."

    What BOP do I have other than addressing your statements?   Tell me what BOP I should have.  Better yet, why don't you set the entire thing up and invite me.  

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @CaptainSceptic

    How do you share a burden of proof when you first stated: 

    " I truly do not believe you can demonstrate an adequate or reasonable explanation for morality other than a necessary Being - God - since without an absolute, objective, omniscient, unchanging, eternal source and reference point all you have is subjectivism and relativism. "

    Then you stated:

    "God as a necessary Being is the most reasonable explanation for morality."

    What BOP do I have other than addressing your statements?   Tell me what BOP I should have.  Better yet, why don't you set the entire thing up and invite me.  

    How? When you make a counterclaim you back it up.

    Obviously you do not believe biblical God(the only one I defend) is 1) the necessary being, and/or 2) you do not believe the biblical God is the source that is most reasonable and best explains morality. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,375
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Tradesecret
    Interestingly, in my experience etc.
    Interestingly in my experience, it would seem that everyone will cherry pick to suit their requirements.

    Cherry picking isn't an exclusive activity.

    Notwithstanding the fact that scripture is notoriously ambiguous anyway.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @zedvictor4
    Notwithstanding the fact that scripture is notoriously ambiguous anyway.
    It certainly needs a discerning mind to understand it for there are many difficult passages. If you keep in mind the audience of address, the time frame, and the culture of the Ancient Near East (ANE) it becomes somewhat easier to understand.

    Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

    Themes in Scripture are a lot easier to pick out such as sin, relationship with God, redemption, justification, the need for repentance, our inability to please God in and of ourselves, the need of a Savior, atonement, etc.

  • CaptainSceptic
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 80
    0
    0
    10
    CaptainSceptic avatar
    CaptainSceptic
    --> @PGA2.0
    I will back everything up.

    Thats fine.
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @CaptainSceptic



    CaptainSceptic,

    See, what did I tell you?  In all of  PGA2.0's subsequent posts to you relative to your debate challenge, he is running away from it!  I have Bible Slapped PGA2.0  silly in many threads within this forum, so expect to see some of the most comical and outlandish responses from him in a discussion.  

    PGA2.0 RUNNING AWAY QUOTE #1: "How badly do you want to debate this?"

    Subjectively, you never let a pseudo-christian, especially a PRETERIST, control YOUR debate, it is your debate and you construct it the way that you want, not PGA2.0's way.  This is an old ruse that the pseudo-christian uses to "try" and get the upper hand when the parameters by the challenger have already been set that is uncomfortable to them at the onset. If PGA2.0 ever gets off the pot and commits, we will see some of the most outrageous Bible hermeneutics and rewrites this forum will ever see, brought to you by the minion of Satan, PGA2.0! 


    .



    .
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    CaptainSceptic,

    See, what did I tell you?  In all of  PGA2.0's subsequent posts to you relative to your debate challenge, he is running away from it!  I have Bible Slapped PGA2.0  silly in many threads within this forum, so expect to see some of the most comical and outlandish responses from him in a discussion.  

    PGA2.0 RUNNING AWAY QUOTE #1: "How badly do you want to debate this?"

    Subjectively, you never let a pseudo-christian, especially a PRETERIST, control YOUR debate, it is your debate and you construct it the way that you want, not PGA2.0's way.  This is an old ruse that the pseudo-christian uses to "try" and get the upper hand when the parameters by the challenger have already been set that is uncomfortable to them at the onset. If PGA2.0 ever gets off the pot and commits, we will see some of the most outrageous Bible hermeneutics and rewrites this forum will ever see, brought to you by the minion of Satan, PGA2.0! 

    Hilarious!!!
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,347
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @CaptainSceptic
    I will back everything up.

    Thats fine.

    In reference to what - BOP, the debate, my post? 

    Are you willing to make the concessions I requested?

    10,000-15,000 characters.
    One or two weeks per round.
    Modify the heading.
    Four rounds as stated.
    Definitions in the Description (to be discussed between the two of us).
    A broader description in the Description box.
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 980
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    Arrrrrrrrrr,    Scripture. 
    You wouldn't have  a god speak anything but.
    It's  ummmmmmm, It's  BRILLIANT. 
    Very well played indeed.  
    From Abraham to L Ron. ( and before that. )

    OK now. 
    Picture  if you will. 
    A meeting. 
    A meeting of the bible writers guild.  A truly brilliant few.   
    In one of these meetings a BLOKE named jerry stands up and goes.
    ' what we should do guys is. 
    We will Get god to speak in a "scripture like format"  
    All the other ( MEN ) where  all like.  
    A scripture format?  What do you mean a scripture like format.
    So on and so on. 

    Soooooooo, let's now pause for six seconds. 
    Six seconds In which we are to think about the ( BRILLIANT  MIND ) of the bloke named jerry that went.   Yeah.
    He went yeah. ( WHAT WE SHOULD  DO IS GET GOD TO SPEAK IN A " SCRIPTURE " like  " FORMAT " ) 

    6 seconds starting now.  
    And a five. 
    And a four.  
    And three. 
    And a two, and one.
    Bammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    Brilliant idea hey?

    Scripture has two great ummmmmmm,  mechanisms. 
    One be it a " covering mech " .  You know. It does not mean this it means that.  
    The other be it a  " hooking mechanism " or a capturing mech if you will. 
    That being.......  When one reads a bible for the first time , they get to the first funny writing. 
    A  scripture.   
    They read it and they think it means this or maybe that.  They will get back to it. 
    They get the next scripture and it quite obviously  means  ( X ) 
    Then they get.

    10  SCRIPTURES into reading the bible. ( and yeah, they are getting the hang of this )
     
    25  SCRIPTURES into the bible.  (  now not meaning to boost butttt, you are now getting  pretty darn good at deciphering these scripture things. ) 

    50 SCRIPTURES into reading the Bible.  (  ☆☆☆CONGRATULATIONS☆☆☆  You are now in the top 100,000 people  of all time at scripture translating. 

    100  SCRIPTURES into reading the Bible.  (  you realize you have a great quirky type way of translating these )  andddddd you may very well be the only one that translates  this one and that one that special  little  way. 

    Anddddddddddddddddd again.  So on and so on.
    By the time you get to the end of the bible the second time,  it becomes pretty dam obvious  that God made that bitch for you. 
    It's  common  sense. .

    But yeah,  A bloke said.
    What we should do isssssss, get god to speak scripture.  
    A brilliant mind hey?
    His mind is up there with the bloke who looked at carrots and then looked at a cake and thought,  carrot flavored cake.    
    Again,  BRILLIANT. 

    Good game. 
    Good game. 

     

  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 980
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    ⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙⊙▪○▪○▪  WARNING  ▪○▪○▪○▪  WARNING  ▪○▪○▪○▪  WARNING  ▪○▪○▪⊙⊙⊙⊙ 

    We are now reminded that... 

                        ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆    ONE THING IS FOR CERTAIN    ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

    《One can NEVER guess what it is that they might make their God tell them next》 

    Me mom warned me about shlt like this. 

    Mom  76 : 15.  Be wary of people that lie to themselves. 
    ( within reason ) oh and along with.  
    Mom  47 : 11   Bloody churchie idiots. 

    Deb  8 : 42    To believe in God 83% (  which is the MAX )  one must lie to one's self FULL STOP


    Who's up for a quick game of     { SCRIPTURES }?

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 733
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    For Christian apologists to explain something hermetically ,  means  -  to  make it up as you go when caught on the back foot in an awkward embarrassing biblical dilemma. It also mean to redirect ones attention away with  biblical verses that go actually nowhere in explaining away  said awkward embarrassing biblical dilemma. But I have found the most favored tactic  of apologetic Christians is to  simply present one's own theories or even opinions as fact without supporting evidence. When all the above  fails to convince then its down to the age old veiled insults of one "not being able to read" and "understand". 
    Just make up stuff as you go along. I have consistently applied the same hermeneutics for quite some time. I have yet to be caught out with an embarrassing biblical dilemma. Nor am I attempting to redirect attention away from any biblical verse. I am not ashamed of any verse in the bible per se. As for presenting my position - I did present evidence. I used the story of Peter's from the book of Acts. I also used Jesus' sermon on the mount with particular reference to murder and adultery. I also never said people could not read. GO back and look at what I wrote. I indicated clearly, that those who do use the hermeneutic I suggested would read the bible one way and those who did not would read it another way. My last statement directed at the Captain was my attempt (weak as it was) at mocking him / her for her initial comments in juxtaposition to his own mocking of Christians. In context with the rest of my paragraph however, it ought to be clear that his non-reading is not that he has no ability to read but that he is reading according to his own hermeneutic and not as Christians tend to read.