Too Proud & Stubborn

Originally posted by Suzianne
Everyone is automatically a citizen of the country they were born in. How is that not clear?

It might be clear but it is certainly not true.
Are you that naïve?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Everyone is automatically a citizen of the country they were born in. How is that not clear? And if you want to be a citizen of a country you were not born in, then you must apply for citizenship. How is this not clear?

My cousin was born in Zambia, she is a British subject and as far as I know has no rights to Zambian citizenship.

Originally posted by DeepThought
My cousin was born in Zambia, she is a British subject and as far as I know has no rights to Zambian citizenship.

I think she would have had the right to Zambian citizenship if she applied before the age of 18 and hadn't yet acquired British citizenship. She would not, however, be allowed to stand for president. She would also not legally be allowed to hold dual citizenship (by Zambian law, I think British law does allow it).

I have the 'right of abode' in the UK based on the fact that my grandparents were born there. In practice they won't automatically give me a visa to let me in. (yes I tried once, and there was a long list of requirements).

I believe Switzerland does not give citizenship based on birth and there are people who have lived there for generations without being granted citizenship - to the point that they may no longer have rights to citizenship of any other country.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And if you think God has ever "condoned" slavery, then you're wrong, too.

Yeah, I see a perception problem here.

No surprise that you chose to deflect rather than address the salient points of my post. It seems that all you do anymore is take gratuitous shots at posters and/or deflect.

The Jews depicted God as condoning slavery here just as I said:

Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves.

Any chance you'll actually address the salient points of my previous post?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You mean I must present my interpretation of Matthews interpretation? And for some reason it must differ from yours or you can conclude that your interpretation is actually Jesus' true teaching?
Sorry, but I see some flaws in your logic.

Yes, that logic is flawed and it's all YOURS. I never said or implied anything of the sort.

Look, you made a couple of vacuous claims and I called you on it. Instead of admitting it, it seems you've chosen to make up some convoluted "logic", pretend that it's mine and then declare it as "flawed". It's not unlike something a teen would do. You're not usually this much of an oaf, but every once in a while you post something like this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think she would have had the right to Zambian citizenship if she applied before the age of 18 and hadn't yet acquired British citizenship. She would not, however, be allowed to stand for president. She would also not legally be allowed to hold dual citizenship (by Zambian law, I think British law does allow it).

I have the 'right of abode' in the UK ...[text shortened]... izenship - to the point that they may no longer have rights to citizenship of any other country.

She's around 40, so too late for that. In general there is no barrier to UK subjects holding dual citizenship, although they may look askance at someone wanting dual UK/North Korean nationality. If one is born abroad and one's parents are both British then citizenship is automatic unless one renounces it. This does not apply to grandchildren, although if you found you needed to flee Africa (for honourable reasons) then I think you would have fewer difficulties getting UK citizenship than someone with no family history here.

In Britain the law was changed in the late 80's and one requires at least one British grandparent for birth to grant automatic citizenship (I'm not entirely sure of the requirements it may be more stringent than that).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's not unlike something a teen would do.

So, trying to belittle me is all you got? I note that you failed to explain where I was wrong. If I created a strawman, the counter argument is as simple as explaining why it is a strawman.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, trying to belittle me is all you got? I note that you failed to explain where I was wrong. If I created a strawman, the counter argument is as simple as explaining why it is a strawman.

Let's see. You edited out the majority of my response to you and then tried to pretend that the only said the following: "It's not unlike something a teen would do."

For the record, I also posted the following:

Yes, that logic is flawed and it's all YOURS. I never said or implied anything of the sort.

Look, you made a couple of vacuous claims and I called you on it. Instead of admitting it, it seems you've chosen to make up some convoluted "logic", pretend that it's mine and then declare it as "flawed".

The following also applies to this latest post of yours. Evidently you can't help yourself. You're really something.
" It's not unlike something a teen would do. You're not usually this much of an oaf, but every once in a while you post something like this."

Perhaps you're looking to my claim that "you're not usually not this much of an oaf"?

Amazing what lengths some people will go to in order to avoid having to admit when they make vacuous claims.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see. You edited out the majority of my response to you and then tried to pretend that the only said the following: "It's not unlike something a teen would do."

When it comes to 'vacuous claims' you sure are taking the cake.
I chose to quote the bit of your post that I was responding to as is quite normal practice in this forum and you describe that as 'editing out'? Sorry, but that is not an accurate description of what I did.

Amazing what lengths some people will go to in order to avoid having to admit when they make vacuous claims.
Yes, and you are attempting to prove the point by demonstrating the behaviour yourself. Now do you have any evidence that I created a strawman or that I made any vacuous claims? If so, present it. If not, admit you are wrong. Repeating insults and claims that you were right without actually addressing anything I said will get you nowhere.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Interesting that in your mind God not only didn't unequivocally condemn slavery, but explicitly condoned it because "[the Bible] had to be acceptable to ancient man"?

Yet somehow God WAS able to unequivocally condemn the eating of shellfish, wearing mixed fabrics, etc.

Doesn't it make much more sense to simply admit that the ancient Jews were wron ...[text shortened]... was the will of God? Especially in light of the fact that Jesus clearly believed that they were?

You have obviously studied some Christian theology
What does this mean ?

"So then the law has become our child-conductor unto Christ that we might be justified out of faith.

But since faith has come, we are no longer under a child-conductor.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:24-26)

In relation to indentured servitude (slavery), shell fish eating, fabric in garments worn, for example - what did the Apostle Paul mean that the law was the child-conductor leading them to "unto Christ" ?

Interesting that in your mind God not only didn't unequivocally condemn slavery, but explicitly condoned it because "[the Bible] had to be acceptable to ancient man"?

He instituted the death penalty for any Israelites kidnapping another human being.

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)

I think we have to consider the "slavery" for which God made allowance (as He also did or divorce which He said He hated), was not wholly "condoned". At least not that form of slavery that I am most familiar with in this and the last millennia.

"This ban against kidnapping is a point lost on, or ignored by, those who compare servanthood in Israel with slavery in the antebellum South, let alone the ancient Near East." Paul Copan

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like murder, slavery is wrong now, was always wrong and will always be wrong.

Jesus understood this:

Matthew 7
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

There is no room for condoning slavery in the above. The depiction of God as condoning slavery in the OT is ...[text shortened]... depiction as is your defense of it. It's not the God of Jesus. YOUR God is ridiculously absurd.

Isn't it true that if you just take Matthew 7:12 in an isolated way to say it is the total reduction of the Law of Moses, you also end up with absurdity ?

There are ten commandments to begin with. The first four are of a vertical category relating to man's treatment of God. The remaining six are of a horizontal category concerning man's treatment of his fellow man.

Just taken by Matt. 7:12 itself there is no requirement there to love God or even believe that God exists. The first commandment:

"And Jehovah spoke all these words, saying, I am Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the slave house. (Exo. 20:1)

You shall have no other gods before Me. (v.2)

You shall not make for yourself an idol, nor the form of anything that is in heaven above or on the earth beneath ... etc. etc. " (v.3)

You shall not bow down to them and you shall not serve them, .... etc. etc. " (v.4)

Its mistaken or disingenuous to suggest that Jesus Christ would reduce the ten commandments to something which didn't even mention God AT ALL ? That's a humanist's daydream, that Jesus would sum up the words from Mt. Sinai as about neighbor to neighbor dealings only.

How could Matthew 7:12 with no mention of sanctifying the name of God, not taking His name in vain, be excluded from any consummate summary of the Law to Him ?

"You shall not take the name of Jehovah your God in vain, for Jehovah will not hold guiltless him who takes is name in vain." (v.7)

From the fifth commandment, the dealings among persons toward persons are mentioned. IE. not kill, not commit adultery, not steal, not bear false witness against a neighbor, not covet - these are between persons. But the first four commandments are related to the treatment of God Himself.

We cannot take seriously your view that Jesus would sum up the ten commandments in a completely human to human conclusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When it comes to 'vacuous claims' you sure are taking the cake.
I chose to quote the bit of your post that I was responding to as is quite normal practice in this forum and you describe that as 'editing out'? Sorry, but that is not an accurate description of what I did.

[b]Amazing what lengths some people will go to in order to avoid having to admit w ...[text shortened]... and claims that you were right without actually addressing anything I said will get you nowhere.

Evidently there's not much hope of you snapping out of denial mode. You're denying things just to deny them no matter how ridiculous, like with the following:

I chose to quote the bit of your post that I was responding to as is quite normal practice in this forum and you describe that as 'editing out'? Sorry, but that is not an accurate description of what I did.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/edit+out

edit out
Also found in: Legal, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia

ed·it
(ĕd′ĭt)
tr.v. ed·it·ed, ed·it·ing, ed·its
1.
a. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
b. To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories.
c. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience.
2. To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example).
3. To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing.
4. To eliminate; delete: edited the best scene out.

You ELIMINATED / DELETED the majority of my post from the Quoted Post Box in your response.

So, despite your denial, it IS a completely accurate description of what you did.

If you remain true to form, you'll continue to deny this also. Even if you don't, I'm not about to break down everything into this type of painstaking detail for you to be able to understand it. The thought of what I'd have to do to further explain how it was part of a compound AND statement and the implications of that is overwhelmingly daunting...

As such, there doesn't seem to be any point in trying to continue this discussion.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No surprise that you chose to deflect rather than address the salient points of my post. It seems that all you do anymore is take gratuitous shots at posters and/or deflect.

The Jews depicted God as condoning slavery here just as I said:

Leviticus 25
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slave ...[text shortened]... slaves.

Any chance you'll actually address the salient points of my previous post?

The instructions of Leviticus emphasize ritual, legal and moral practices rather than beliefs.

Jesus explained what happened with the many laws that Moses wrote that were outside the Ten commandments written by the finger of God when He answered the question of the certificate of divorce.

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

(Matthew 19:8 NIV)
So it was with the question of slavery.

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.

(Mark 10:5 NIV)

Most people have gotten past permitting slavery, but even today the governments still permits divorce and have added the term "abortion" to the mix due to the hardness of men's hearts.