Posted: Mar 16, 2019 10:06 pm
Cito di Pense wrote:Zwaarddijk wrote:On my part, if it were true, certain arguments of mine would actually gain power and credibility from Ingersoll's claim being true, but I am not going to be seduced by wishful thinking into assuming he was right on this.
What would it mean for his (Ingersoll's) claim to be true? Ingersoll mass-produced a certain variety of rant that appeals to persons of an anti-religious mindset. Both religious and anti-religious attempts to interpret scriptures sink by running onto the same rock.
What I mean is, someone who would refuse to save a drowning person on Sunday has personal reasons for the refusal, and anyone accepting a justification on the basis of scripture has similar personal reasons. Quoting scripture is only an excuse. If you could show that scripture produces excuses for pushing people into the river (you can), it makes a more serious charge. It's still an excuse, and you're stuck with that. We don't let people off the hook for pushing people into the river; scripture again just gives excuses for not letting them off the hook.
Since you have no idea why I want to know whether his claim is accurate or not, there's no use to your weird diatribe. Bugger off.