
You just re-quoted the same bible passage that was prominently mentioned in the original article. So the only logical inference is that you meant to either support or defend it. It is therefore unsurprising that you received criticism. So to that I say beware of certitude when reading scripture. Remember that Caiaphas knew his scripture better than anyone, yet he was unable to see the prophecy of Jesus right before his very eyes. |
The wonderful thing about religious faith is that you can see in the Bible what you want to see, and nobody can convince you otherwise because it's about faith and faith is not debatable.
I, for example, have faith that the Bible is (rather, the different books that made it into the officially sanctioned "Bible" are) a bunch of old legends that form a nice, but not very self-consistent, superstition. I don't mean that as an attack anybody else's faith, just a statement of my own. I hope you will respect my right to that belief, even if you disagree with it, just as I respect your right to your own faith, even if I disagree with it. |
This live-and-let-live is all very well, pp, until someone sticks a microchip in your head. |
Don't know how differing interpretations of the bible causes microchips to be implanted in your head. I think privacy rights might, though. |
Until SCOTUS overrules Roe v Wade on grounds that the Constitution does not say anything about privacy covering abortion. It says nothing about privacy covering microchips either. Originalism has its problems. |
They don't have the intellectual integrity to overturn privacy as a whole. They might chip away at it, but they aren't going to let private companies monitor people. That is a consensus belief. |
Oh snap, pp! ![]() |
So I'm curious -- do you not wear polyester blends because the Bible says you shouldn't wear clothing of mixed materials? Do you not eat shellfish? Are you opposed to farmers rotating crops? Just wondering... |