Proof you can’t take the bible literally

@divegeester said
You are mistaken.

Evidently you have the same conflicts and issues with other posters in other forums as well.

@josephw said
Evidently you have the same conflicts and issues with other posters in other forums as well.

Using the argumentum ad populum fallacy will no doubt give you some sense of solace as you flounder angrily around.

@divegeester said
Using the argumentum ad populum fallacy will no doubt give you some sense of solace as you flounder angrily around.

It's not a fallacy that you hear from more other posters in other forums the same things you hear in this forum concerning the way you post. It's a fact, not a fallacy.

But thanks for providing the term because "fallacious" defines your thinking and posting habits and methods clearly.

@divegeester said
Recently I’ve had many exchanges across many threads with KellyJay about this topic. But here in this OP is absolute proof that bible cannot be taken literally.

Because if one believes KellyJay’s, sonship’s and Jospehw’s version of “literal” then this is what you get…

Assertion 1)
Jesus saves the few, not the many

Evidence 1) Matt 7:14
[i]“Becau ...[text shortened]... to find if one first has to acknowledge that taking the bible literally at face value doesn’t work.

Of course you are correct about the Bible not being to be taken literally .
There are 2 distinctly different birth of Jesus stories . Both cannot be true .

@josephw said
It's not a fallacy that you hear from more other posters in other forums the same things you hear in this forum concerning the way you post. It's a fact, not a fallacy.

But thanks for providing the term because "fallacious" defines your thinking and posting habits and methods clearly.

Thanks for your feedback Joseph, I shall give it due respect.

@josephw said
You are the "gutless turd", one without a sense of propriety.

Try showing some integrity and bridle yourself.

Which of the 2 different birth of Jesus stories in the bible do you believe to be true ?
Since you disagree with the idea that the bible cannot be taken literally then you must believe that both are true . But both cannot be true .
Don't be a gutless turd and choose .

@caissad4 said
Of course you are correct about the Bible not being to be taken literally .
There are 2 distinctly different birth of Jesus stories . Both cannot be true .

Both can be true even when both accounts contain or omit different details.

Do you have a specific point to contend with?

@caissad4 said
Which of the 2 different birth of Jesus stories in the bible do you believe to be true ?
Since you disagree with the idea that the bible cannot be taken literally then you must believe that both are true . But both cannot be true .
Don't be a gutless turd and choose .

So your disdain pours forth with the "gutless turd" remark?

You discredit yourself. Show a little integrity.

@divegeester said
Thanks for your feedback Joseph, I shall give it due respect.

But yet again defect and deny the truth.

@josephw said
So your disdain pours forth with the "gutless turd" remark?

You discredit yourself. Show a little integrity.

Gutless turd was your words .

@josephw said
Both can be true even when both accounts contain or omit different details.

Do you have a specific point to contend with?

Seriously , LMAO .
Both cannot be true , except in the MAGA world view .

@josephw said
So your disdain pours forth with the "gutless turd" remark?

You discredit yourself. Show a little integrity.

Call her an “ashole” like you did me.

👍🏼

@josephw said
But yet again defect and deny the truth.

Tell me exactly, precisely please, which “truth” it is you are accusing me of denying?

@caissad4 said
Gutless turd was your words .

Read the thread. It's divegeester's words.

@caissad4 said
Seriously , LMAO .
Both cannot be true , except in the MAGA world view .

The onus is on you to provide the evidence for your assertion.

Or you can mimic divegeester and run away from the contention that you started.