Quoting one statement from a source in support of one's perspective can be interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate that the source aligns with that perspective.
"can" != "necessarily does", but you said "can't", which is what I refuted. And I think your assertion here is even more baseless, frankly ... there's zero indication that they offered the quote to buff the bible, which was not previously the subject of discussion. And they didn't even quote it in support of their perspective, they said it was "aspirational" but then said "To isolate children from the iniquity of the parent would require the dissolution of the family".
I also pushed back at the bible thumpers who demanded contradictions in the bible from me when the whole context was you explicitly pointing one out.
I have far better things to do than discuss the absurdities of texts written by ignorant nomads and Roman propagandists thousands of years ago (and spun by agents of King James) so I won't respond further ... over and out.
I also pushed back at the bible thumpers who demanded contradictions in the bible from me when the whole context was you explicitly pointing one out.
I have far better things to do than discuss the absurdities of texts written by ignorant nomads and Roman propagandists thousands of years ago (and spun by agents of King James) so I won't respond further ... over and out.