sunspark

You keep posting this without reference, so I had to dig to find it (Deuteronomy 19:11-13).

Your quote is deceiving, taken completely out of context. "Thou shall not pity" refers to punishment of premeditated, intentional murder. It appears blatantly obvious to me that it refers to not letting murderers "get away with it".

sunspark

Another thing I wish to call you on:

Hinting accusations does not help your argument, and is not appreciated. Along with the pasted quote, you were provided the url containing the full forum thread. You owe "noah" an apology.

Sheshbazzar

Actually I was drawing my quotation from Devarim / Deuteronomy 19:21 so the proper context is verses 15-21
Sorry for not specifying which of the "thine eye shall not pity" verses I was referring to, however my additional references to Vaiqura / Leviticus 24:20
ought to clarify which "shall not" it was that I was referring to.
apparently you have not taken the time to look up these verses, or you would not have posted this accusation.
As I above indicted by the above quotation, the context presented in the entirety of my post, shows which "Your eye shall not spare" verse was being referred to.

Sheshbazzar

I confess that I did completely miss noah's provided URL, had I not missed it, I would have visited that forum, and rather obviously my argument would have taken a different course.
Thank you for pointing this out to me, and I will be giving my apology to noah in a seperate post addressed directly to him.

I have now read the entire thread on that forum, strange how that
one particular post

appeared to be

so spaced out

and disconnected?

while all of the preceeding and following posts employed conventional spacing, paragraphs and sentence structures.
It was the highly unconventional writing style that led me to think it had been edited (not having seen the actual thread to establish the context in which the 'odd' sounding reply was being given)
Now having read that entire thread, at least as of my last reading, there was as yet no clear answer to the question I have been asking.
If it is permitted, I will join, and post my questions directly to that site.
Thank you again for pointing out my error.

sunspark

No, they do not: they are nowhere near it, don't even hint it, and you never gave a reference for it even indirectly. It's certainly disingenuous to follow-up a correction/apology with the equivalent of "it's really your fault, though". In debate and critical discussion it is common courtesy (if nothing else) to always cite your references for each claim made when it is made, at least if you expect your claims to be taken at all seriously.

I said your quote was, and is, deceiving. That's not an accusation. It makes no comment about your intentions or the extent of your knowledge of this fact; I don't read minds and don't try to. It was deceiving, and unfortunately, it still is. We're still talking about context, which, as you have corrected me is Deuteronomy 19:15-21 (intentional, premeditated perjury) rather than Deuteronomy 19:11-13 (intentional, premeditated murder).

I freely admit I was wrong about the verse you "meant" (though I would argue, understandably). I had hoped when you corrected me with the right reference I would see more logic in your argument and was ready to apologize for the mistake. Alas, we simply make a switch, your quote is still not the same as you've painted it: it is talking about what judges are to do with false accusers (intentional, premeditated perjury): show them no mercy, to give him what he "had intended to do to his brother".

rlogan

Well, this has been interesting.

By observation, it was important to imbue Christianity with the "authority" of ancient heritage and hence the Hebrew scriptures were hijacked without any intention of following them in the particulars.

Understanding that makes a lot more sense of the contradiction than the mental contortions one has to perform in explaining it away.

I am somewhat surprised that nobody has pointed out that the premise of Hebrew Bible "law" as immutable is certainly falsifiable to begin with.

King Josiah happens to "find" the book of Deuteronomy Moses had left on the coffee table in the temple. Isn't that special? Heh.

Moses was pretty sloppy with one set of ten commandments he smashes and then replaces with the "same" set of ten commandments that are different. Then the boob loses a whole book of the law in the temple.

So you have ample precedent here for revamping the immutable.

So why can't Paul or Joe Smith or anyone else for that matter bump into Jesus on the way to Damascus or have some golden tablets drop into their laps?

Have a little faith here, brothers and sisters.

Jesse Leigh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Leigh

I do not "run away" from anything - ever. OTOH sometimes I do walk away for a variety of reasons.

Gawen: Well, I hope, after you calm down, you come back and at least try to refute noah.

Gawen: First of all, whatever makes you think I'm not calm? I made a rational decision and you just don't like it, that's all. If engaging in debates disturbed my spirit or upset me in any way, I'd hardly consider spending time doing it, and I've been "doing it" for years.

Re: noah... Refuting him is no problem. However, one must use one's own powers of observation to decide whether or not engaging someone in debate is going to *edify* anyone. All things considered I have concluded that noah is not someone who is seeking either edification or truth, but rather contention, and so I choose not to entertain him as I explained earlier.


Quote: by Jesse.
Personally, I wouldn't care if Mickey Mouse wrote a passage of the Bible, much less the Apostle Paul - a person picked (to put it mildly) by Christ Himself.

Gawen:And here's a great start! Would you please post what verse/s where Jesus himself, in His words, picks Paul as his proxy?

Damascus road, bright Light (Christ), booming voice from the sky, resulting in Paul's blindness and subsequent commission as Christ's messenger to the Gentiles. Ring any bells?

Edited to add: Sorry, forgot the Scripture (I thought you said that Scripture doesn't prove anything, BTW. (?) Acts chapter 9 - all of it, but specifically verse 15.)

Quote:by Jesse.
I don't believe noah is seeking anything other than contention. Should my perception change, I will again consider engaging in "scholarly" (your word) discussion with him.

Gawen:I don't see noah as coming here to cause strife or to goad or bait people. But he does have a point to be argued for...or against.

So *you* talk to him then. I have given my reasons (twice now) explaining why I choose not to.

Quote:by Jesse.
"adroitness or artfulness in securing advantages without arousing hostility: address or tact in conduct of affairs."

Gawen: "Diplomats" are also human. Surely you don't shy away from everyone who loses their temper or raises their voice to you? Wouldn't you consider yourself (as a Witness {your words}) a diplomat of Jesus or perhaps the kingdom of God? Would Jesus turn away from noah? Would Paul?

Gawen, I would not presume to speak for Jesus Christ or the Apostle Paul. However, we are admonished not to "cast pearls before swine." That is, of course, metaphorically phrased, but yes, Jesus turned away from many, as did Paul, and as do I.

While you have not known me long, I do believe you know me well enough to know that I "don't shy away from" anyone, period. The "temper tantrums" or "bad manners" of other people are not my problem, but theirs. I do have my line in the sand, however, and will not converse with people whom I know it would be pointless to talk with. While I myself cannot be insulted, offended, or in any way bothered by what people here or anywhere else might say, I do *not* converse with people who disparage the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit intentionally, knowing better. Perhaps this will make things a little clearer to/for you. To do so *would* be to "cast pearls before swine."

You seem to view me as someone with an "us and them" mentality. This is incorrect. There are several people here who seem to be sincerely seeking TRUTH. Primarily, I come here to converse with them. However, I will converse with *anyone* who can manage to refrain from crossing my above-stated line in the sand. We need not agree, I just have my personal understanding of what is and is not acceptable. I would not take away anyone's right to freedom of speech even if it *does* cross my line in the sand, but I will never converse with them unless they can respect that while conversing with me - indeed, even as I respect theirs.

Gawen:I have yet to see a Christian theist refute noah, although they've tried.

Well, it is nice to have something to look forward to. I'm sorry that (at least, at this time) I can't be the one to oblige. - Jesse.

Gawen

Glad to see you back. Now I look forward to a nice exchange between you and noah.

...nevermind.

This is after all, Biblical Criticism and History. What else are you going to use?

Jesse Leigh

Ahoy there Gawen!

I don't think you can have read my post if you believe I'll be conversing with noah. He doesn't appear to have enough respect for anyone to restrain himself well enough to meet the criteria I outlined.

I believe this was my question to you when I first stumbled upon this DG. You said that Scripture and personal experience wouldn't "prove" a thing, and would be likely to be dismissed by most of the members here.

I'm finding you were right. Most insist that you can't prove anything from a Book they consider mythical. Nor can you tell truthfully of a personal experience such as an interaction with God, when the God of the Bible is as mythical to them as the Bible itself is.

Not very open-minded of them, when open-mindedness is so highly prized here - verbally that is. - Jesse.

Sheshbazzar

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
"Your eye shall not spare"..."a breach for a breach" (Lev 24:20) see Neh.13:22, Psalm 18:25 72:13, Prov.3:3, 13:31, 16:6, 2 Sam. 22:26, and Matt. 5:7
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar
...however my additional references to Vaiqura / Leviticus 24:20... ought to clarify which "shall not" it was that I was referring to. apparently you have not taken the time to look up these verses, or you would not have posted this accusation.
really?
"Remember me, O my Elohim, also in this, and spare me, according to the greatness of Thy mercy" Nehemiah 13:22

"With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful:..." Psalm18:25

"He shall take pity on the weak and needy, and the needy He shall save" Psalm 72:13

"Let not mercy and truth forsake you: bind them about your neck:write them upon the tablet of your heart " Proverbs 3:3

"He that oppress the poor, shows contempt for his Maker, but he that honors Him has mercy on the poor." Proverbs 14:31

"By mercy and truth sin is atoned for; and through reverence of YHWH men withdraw from evil" Proverbs 16:6

"With the merciful You will show yourself merciful,..." 2 Samuel 22:26

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."
Matthew 5:7

Notice the words in "BOLD" above.
I do not consider it decieving to when discussing the subject of showing "PITY" and having "MERCY" to cite verses that pertain to the subject of the giving of, and the receiving of "PITY" and "MERCY

This IS a VERY strange thread with respect to the commonly held and expressed views of the atheists in these forums;
Who have thousands of times and in thousands of ways stated that the Old Testament laws were "barbaric", "cruel" "unjust" and "unethical".
But in this thread all of the usual, and well known posters on this board have been remaining strangely silent.
This is peculiar because I, the believer here, am the one contending for that common atheist position that The Old Testament Laws ARE barbaric, cruel, unjust, and unethical, and ought not to be obeyed by anyone who has a brain, and a heart, and a sense of justice.
Whereas my worthy opponent, a confessed unbeliever attempts to force his view that all believers Jewish and "xian" (and other) should obey all of those "barbaric" laws.
What an "interesting" world this would make, what with the public stonings of children, adulterers, blasphemers and witches being carried out daily by every synagogue and church in the world.
So lets say noah's position did succeed and prevail, and that all "xians' did accept the validity of his argument, Do you think the result would be a better world, one more hospitable to your atheist viewpoints?
Come then all ye atheists! rally yourselves to the defense of noah's cause! Help him in his efforts to make "The Law of YHWH" the law of the land.