Did you try and research the answer to that Rob? Why do you need me to do that for you? Are you handicapped in some way?

The answer? What are you talking about? I just quoted a verse, to back up my claim that god demanded circumcision. It's right there, in the verse. If you think there is an "answer" that explains this, then I can't debate with you any more. If you're going to deny what the actual bible says, after saying yourself it's the word of god, then I really do give up.

---

Can someone, anyone else, help me out here? Have I lost my mind? Can anyone understand what Frodo is objecting to?

Thanks

You're quote isn't saying what you think it does Rob. The same goes for all of the others that you referred to. If you'd care to put in the tiniest of effort you could find out why.

I don't deny a single word that the bible says, and I find every bit of it to describe a God of love, light and spirit. No contradictions. The same as the authors didn't.

By effort, you mean convincing myself that it doesn't say what it actually says. That is the field of apologetics.

I'm sorry but I'm done, I give up debating with you. I think you're a cool guy, but I can't discuss stuff anymore, we're just not on the same page.

The authors actually didn't see what you see. There is a tradition, a long-standing tradition....of not quite being on board with gods goodness by default. Not that you would have taken the time to consult rabbinical literature or anything...you reckon Teh Jewz got it wrong, after all. "Israel" actually means "to struggle with god". Disagreeing with the big guy is practically a religious duty. I can understand...

Quote:Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

The livestock too, huh? Talk about "love" and "light".

Course, it doesn;t stop with the jews either - your brothers in christ might offer you a little correction of the nature of god as it applies to love. Guess that's just another one of those points of "agreement". I can understand you laying claim to whatever it is you see. All fine and dandy. I think you need to get your eyes checked - but ultimately, meh. Imagining that you see what others see, or what the authors saw....when we have those traditions and the comments of those others upon which to lay that claim bare for the fiction that it is - that's just too much. It's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of the faith based narrative that you have manufactured around the subject. To be expected, though...I suppose. The story has never been good enough for yall, always making additions. Never quite content with the god you got, as opposed to the god you wish to have.

Join the queue Rhythm. There's good honest study of biblical text easily found on the web if you want to find it.

Sorry, what Rhythm, I'm confused. Are you saying my verse isn't accepted? Or didn't happen....? I think I may be losing the plot.

Or maybe you weren't talking to me?

I thought I was starting with a dead easy demonstration.

(January 11, 2015 at 7:32 am)robvalue Wrote: By effort, you mean convincing myself that it doesn't say what it actually says. That is the field of apologetics.

I'm sorry but I'm done, I give up debating with you. I think you're a cool guy, but I can't discuss stuff anymore, we're just not on the same page.

No Rob. I'm talking about unbiased and honest study. You're stopping at listening to your own sides point of view. Confirming your bias. You need to consult conflicting information to get to the truth.

What was that book about? Who wrote it and why? Are we talking direct instruction from the divine or the understood to be directives of the priesthood? Do you think the text in isolation, ignoring the context also included is helping you to find out what exactly is being said? From my own take, and I've studied it to some length, I can assure you that you're interpretations are very wrong. I'd love to be proven wrong, and I do all that I can to challenge my views. I'm not here participating in a circle jerk of my own bias after all.

LOL< nah Rob, you're cool. I never miss a chance to expose frauds and charlatans, that's all.

(January 11, 2015 at 7:50 am)Rhythm Wrote: LOL< nah Rob, you're cool. I never miss a chance to expose frauds and charlatans, that's all.

"In his mind"