Tom <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:
"mclark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1gbhf6t.1hoiqlj10a7te6N%idontreply@toemail.com...
Eros <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
M. Clark
Can I ask a simple question? If your claim is that your
god's
"morality laws" prevent Christians from molesting children,
why is it that a significant proportion of child molesters
are
priests?
What are you talking about? I never made such a claim.
M. Clark
So, what are you saying... that your god's "morality laws" DON'T
prevent Christians, even priests, from molesting children? I'd
say
that would certainly fit the facts more.
2 Peter 3:16
Revelation 3:20
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
Sorry, no reference to priests molesting children there. Try again!
EROS.
Regardless that these verses don't refer to child molestation
verbatim,
they reasonably infer that molesting a child is wrong.
M. Clark
Are we reading the same Bible? Why do you Creationists seem to be able
to read anything you fancy into a book you claim is completely
inerrant? How can you "interpret" something which is inerrant and be
sure you got the right meaning? It doesn't seem possible to me.
I think that you worship the book more than the god it portrays.
EROS.
Clarke: Mea culpa.
I had originally referred to Leviticus 18:6-23 and Ephesians 6:4. These
verses reasonably relate to child molestation regardless that they don't
use the term.
Tom: We already know your idea of "reasonably" and it doesn't apply here. Of
course, we both know that you can make a bible verse say anything you want
it to and biblical literalists have been doing it for years.
Again, with respect to your assertions about God and the Scriptures 2
Peter 3:16 applies here.
M. Clark
.
