Too Proud & Stubborn

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently there's not much hope of you snapping out of denial mode.

Evidently there is not much hope of you actually addressing my initial post that you took issue with and making a genuine argument. Instead you will continue trying to sidetrack the discussion with semantics, insults and claims that you don't have time (something you evidently have in abundance to the point of being willing to write lengthy posts about the definition of 'editing out' despite clearly still being unable to understand the concept).

Now tell me, when you quoted the Bible earlier, why did you edit out the rest of the Bible?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evidently there is not much hope of you actually addressing my initial post that you took issue with and making a genuine argument. Instead you will continue trying to sidetrack the discussion with semantics, insults and claims that you don't have time (something you evidently have in abundance to the point of being willing to write lengthy posts about th ...[text shortened]... .

Now tell me, when you quoted the Bible earlier, why did you edit out the rest of the Bible?

lol. You just go from false claim to false claim. You're incorrigible. A prime example of "Too Proud & Stubborn".

I'll repost the following in the hopes that you'll be able to figure it without me having to break it down into painstaking detail

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...

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
lol. You just go from false claim to false claim. You're incorrigible. A prime example of "Too Proud & Stubborn".

Once again, you totally fail to address the content of my post and fail to answer my questions. Evidently you are "Too Proud & Stubborn" to admit when you are wrong.

I will repost it again for you to have another go at:

Evidently there is not much hope of you actually addressing my initial post that you took issue with and making a genuine argument. Instead you will continue trying to sidetrack the discussion with semantics, insults and claims that you don't have time (something you evidently have in abundance to the point of being willing to write lengthy posts about the definition of 'editing out' despite clearly still being unable to understand the concept).

Now tell me, when you quoted the Bible earlier, why did you edit out the rest of the Bible?

See, copy / paste is so easy.

When you are done rereading it, please explain where the false claims are and why you believe they are false. Merely lolling does not constitute a good argument.

Next, be sure to answer the question about why you edited out much of the Bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Once again, you totally fail to address the content of my post and fail to answer my questions. Evidently you are "Too Proud & Stubborn" to admit when you are wrong.

I will repost it again for you to have another go at:
[quote]Evidently there is not much hope of you actually addressing my initial post that you took issue with and making a genuine argu ...[text shortened]... od argument.

Next, be sure to answer the question about why you edited out much of the Bible.

Evidently you weren't able to figure it without me having to break it down into painstaking detail. Can't say as I'm surprised.

You're incorrigible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]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.
[quote]Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce you ...[text shortened]... rmits divorce and have added the term "abortion" to the mix due to the hardness of men's hearts.[/b]

Ok., but if God is prepared to tolerate these laws due to human weakness, should you not?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently you weren't able to figure it without me having to break it down into painstaking detail. Can't say as I'm surprised.

You're incorrigible.

Evidently you haven't understood my post despite the very clear very plain English.

Lets try again:

You have repeatedly and consistently avoided actually addressing my initial response to your original claim that whatever you say represents Jesus and whatever Suzy says is just interpretation.
Instead you have resorted to a variety of delaying tactics ranging from insults to lols and now you are pretending that you think I am simply incapable of understanding your posts because maybe they are just too sophisticated for me?

It is patently obvious that you are too proud and too stubborn to admit that you are in fact not Jesus' sole representative on Earth. As much as you may Think Of One, you are not The One. Get over yourself.

Now I will ask you for a third time: why did you edit out most of the Bible when you quoted some of it earlier?
(and I fully expect you do dodge the question once again).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evidently you haven't understood my post despite the very clear very plain English.

Lets try again:

You have repeatedly and consistently avoided actually addressing my initial response to your original claim that whatever you say represents Jesus and whatever Suzy says is just interpretation.
Instead you have resorted to a variety of delaying tacti ...[text shortened]... when you quoted some of it earlier?
(and I fully expect you do dodge the question once again).

You know, TW, no matter how long you keep repeating false claims, they won't become true.

In your continued effort to avoid admitting that you made a couple of vacuous claims, you've made false claim after false claim. You can keep pretending that this isn't true, but just as your claim about "editing out" was so blatantly false, so are the rest of your litany of false claims.

So stop pretending, put on your big boy pants and admit it to yourself if nothing else.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You know, TW, no matter how long you keep repeating false claims, they won't become true.

You seem to be talking about yourself not me.

In your continued effort to avoid admitting that you made a couple of vacuous claims, you've made false claim after false claim.
Yet you oddly seem incapable of pointing out those vacuous or false claims or demonstrating that they are vacuous or false. Instead all you have got is evasion tactics. Your earlier claim that you simply didn't have the time to point them out is wearing thinner by the minute as you continue to exhaustively post evasion tactic after evasion tactic.

You can keep pretending that this isn't true, but just as your claim about "editing out" was so blatantly false,
Yet you seem totally unable to answer my question about your own editing out. Why is that?

So stop pretending, put on your big boy pants and admit it to yourself if nothing else.
Back to the insults I see. That's the best you got? Pretend the other party agrees with you and is in secret denial and will agree with you in secret?
Sorry, but if you want me to admit I am wrong you are going to have to point out what I was wrong about instead of continuing your vague inferences and claims of a 'litany of false claims' that you simply don't have the time to address individually (or at all for that matter).

Tell me, is the earth flat?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You seem to be talking about yourself not me.

[b]In your continued effort to avoid admitting that you made a couple of vacuous claims, you've made false claim after false claim.
Yet you oddly seem incapable of pointing out those vacuous or false claims or demonstrating that they are vacuous or false. Instead all you have got is evasion tactics. Y ...[text shortened]... ave the time to address individually (or at all for that matter).

Tell me, is the earth flat?[/b]

lol. Never ceases to amaze me how people like you get when they're in denial mode. You're incorrigible.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Never ceases to amaze me how people like you get when they're in denial mode. You're incorrigible.

You still got nothing? Repeating over and over how amazed you are and how incorrigible I am isn't suddenly going to make you right. You have to actually tell me what I was wrong about and explain why it is wrong. Otherwise your claims of vacuousness are just vacuous.

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

Jesus understood this:

There is no room for condoning slavery in the above. The depiction
of God as condoning slavery in the OT is wrong. The ancient Jews were
wrong to depict this as the will of God.

So your interpretation of god is correct and millions of Jews past and present incorrect.

You can keep trying to defend the depiction of God as condoning slavery if you like, but it's a ridiculously absurd depiction as is your defense of it. It's not the God of Jesus. YOUR God is ridiculously absurd.

And here you explicitly ridicule Suzianne's interpretation.

You are quite clearly insisting that your interpretation is correct.

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?

Does this command abrogate the other one that any caught stealing a man would suffer capital punishment - death ? (See Exodus 21:16 )

The words in verse 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. would not mean stealing or kidnapping. Someone from a surrounding nation might come into the land of Israel to be an indentured servant.

45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition,

Gain acquisition must not have meant kidnap forcefully.

Then we read -

You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession, you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

Now if the means of a stranger [ ger ] or of a sojourner [ toshab ] with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger's family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his own family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. ( See Lev. 25:42-29)

There is a notable distinction between Israelite servant / employees and foreign workers in Israel. Is there ground to accuse God of condoning slavery of foreigners ? Indentured servitude could include people from non-Israeli surrounding nations.

Their lot does not compare to the antebellum South's chattel kidnapping and enslavement. But a significant presence of perhaps resentful foreigners called for more strict measures in the rules for indentured servitude.

Some foreigners after the Israeli conquest would be cooperative aliens who were willing to follow the laws given by God to His theocratic nation. Resentful ones who were less cooperative called for stricter supervision.

The land ultimately belonged to God, The Israelites as His nation could co-own the land because they were His theocratic nation. Foreigners who planned more than business transactions were to be incorporated into Israelite homes to serve Israelite families. Unless they chose to live elsewhere they were to serve the Israelites.

The law indicates that strangers in the land as indentured servants could choose to be released and even become rich themselves. Those who had no other recourse than to remain poor and to live in Israel had one option - indentured servitude.

That Israel was to treat foreigners and strangers well is evidenced by the command of Leviticus 19:33-34 . The Israelites were commanded to love the stranger in the land.

"When a stranger [ ger ] resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God." ( Leviticus 19:33-34 )

The command to love the alien is reiterated in Deut. 10:19.

"So show your love for the alien [ ger ], for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." (Deut. 19:19)

I stop here for now.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Ok., but if God is prepared to tolerate these laws due to human weakness, should you not?

To "allow" wrong behavior for a time without immediately sending fire and brimstone down on mankind does not mean that God or Jesus was "approving" those actions as morally acceptable. It is clear from scripture that even Moses displeased God at times.

God inspired the holy prophets to speak out against the evil of the people, but as Jesus pointed out, they murdered them instead of changing their ways.

I am only speaking out against evil, like the prophets, I do not believe I am called to murder those that continue to commit immoral acts.

And it has nothing to do with human weakness, but it was the hardness of their hearts that needs to be softened.

Originally posted by wolfgang59

There is no room for condoning slavery in the above. The depiction
of God as condoning slavery in the OT is wrong. The ancient Jews were
wrong to depict this as the will of God.

So your interpretation of god is correct and millions of Jews past and present incorrect.

[quote]You can keep trying to defend the depiction of God as cond ...[text shortened]... s interpretation.

[b]You are quite clearly insisting that your interpretation is correct.[/b]

What you seem to fail to realize is that in my response to S, I was speaking conceptually from the POV of Jesus based on what he stated in Matthew 7:12, hence the verbiage "Jesus understood this.." and "It's not the God of Jesus.". S seemed to understand this and didn't seem to have any problem with that being the POV of Jesus. However what she did take exception to was that concept that God ever condoned slavery. I pointed out that the Jews did in fact depict God as condoning slavery in the OT in Leviticus 25:44-46. AFAIK S never responded which was as expected.

Understand now?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You still got nothing? Repeating over and over how amazed you are and how incorrigible I am isn't suddenly going to make you right. You have to actually tell me what I was wrong about and explain why it is wrong. Otherwise your claims of vacuousness are just vacuous.

You know, TW, no matter how long you keep repeating false claims, they won't become true.

In your continued effort to avoid admitting that you made a couple of vacuous claims, you've made false claim after false claim. You can keep pretending that this isn't true, but just as your claim about "editing out" was so blatantly false, so are the rest of your litany of false claims.

So stop pretending, put on your big boy pants and admit it to yourself if nothing else.