"Two Birds" so far...
Walter E. Loy errancy@infidels.org
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 19:54:09 -0400 (00930200049, 377173A1.749D3AA5@digdat.com)
derspatz
> --snip insults--
>
> Despite this, the current topic remains the
> following, and nothing but the following:
> "Yahweh's land promise could not be both
> conditional and not conditional". I maintain my
> claim that the promise never was unconditional
> as Till asserts, and reject Till's claim that he
> has shown otherwise.
>
> The current issues under contention are these:
>
> A) I maintain my claim that Genesis 17:4-17
> lists a SINGLE covenant with multiple
> terms, including both circumcision within
> a specified period of time and the land deal,
> and...
> B) I maintain that the author of Deuteronomy 9
> did not share Till's understanding of unconditionality,
> and...
> C) I maintain that Till's use of the phrase "behavioral
> matter" is NOT equivalent to Deuteronomy 9's
> author's use of the term "because of your righteousness",
> and...
> D) I maintain that Till's use of the phrase "regardless of"
> is NOT equivalent to Deuteronomy 9's author's use
> of the phrase "not because of"
>
WL
Gee, are we supposed to be impressed? You can maintain these things all
you like, but they remain ridiculous quibbles. Did you take lessons
from Bill Clinton? Perhaps you would like to maintain that Till misused
the word 'is'?
> derspatz
>
> --snip self-serving ranting--
>
> 1) Requests for comforting explanations or
> moral justifications of Yahweh's punitive
> measures, which did indeed include death.
>
> For the purposes of getting back to THIS
> debate, my only comment will be that
> IF we are created by a God for his own
> pleasure, then human life is his to do with as
> he pleases, and how you deal with it is not
> my problem. If we are NOT created by a
> God, then what's the difference... none of
> the actions attributed to Yahweh in the OT
> can be brought to bear against the character
> of a Person who does not in fact exist, and
> since Till does not accept that he does in
> fact exist, the point is moot for the purposes
> of quelling any emotional distress in Farrell
> Till over a few Israelite deaths.
>
> Thus, I maintain that I snipped several KB
> of such impertinent examples from his posting
> the first time for damn good reason, and no
> matter how many times Till reposts these
> examples they will not become any more
> relevant to the topic or issues under contention
> above.
>
> 2) Requests for me to expand on theological
> abstractions relating to circumcision. If I
> need to defend an abstract significance of
> the mark of circumcision at any time because
> it becomes essential to my case, I will do so.
> As it stands, I do not.
>
> 3) Requests for me to show that circumcision
> was not an absolute requirement, with death
> being the penalty for those un-cut "members"
> of Jewish society. Till and I agree that it was,
> so bandwidth spent pointing out examples of
> it being so is pointless.
>
> 4) Requests for me to "pick up where Sparrow
> left off" on Uzziel/Exodus chronology (or any
> other) arguments.
> If I encounter passages which lead me to suspect
> that Till erred in previous postings, I will say
> so, but I will not take time away from the main
> debate to comment on every quibble between
> Till and other debaters (or even myself) in another
> thread. When *that* thread becomes the subject of
> attention again, I assure Farrell Till that those
> issues which haven't already been addressed
> will, and those that have will be pointed out again.
>
> 5) Requests for me to answer the second half of
> this debate ("ALL the land" vs. "NOT ALL the
> land" in Joshua) while the first half is still being
> debated. I stated in advance that I would handle
> this subject as two separate issues, and all the
> reposting in the world of arguments pertaining to
> "issue 2" will not get me off "issue 1" until it has
> been addressed adequately.
>
> 6) Requests for answers to "why didn't Yahweh
> just say...X"? questions. How Farrell Till deals
> with what the text tells us and what it leaves
> us to figure out on our own is not my problem,
> and he has given no indication that he would
> take the advice of a Christian theist were it given.
> I remain concerned with whether or not what we
> ARE told in the text agrees with Till's "Failed
> Land Promises" theory or not.
>
> 7) Requests for answers to OTHER errancy issues
> before continuing on with the issues currently
> under the microscope. Whether Till's time-wasting
> tactic involves repeated postings on a single issue, or
> instead involves repeatedly posting other-issue after
> other-issue prior to a clear analysis of the first issue
> is really immaterial to me; time-wasting tactics are
> time-wasting tactics, and I'm not inclined to cooperate
> with them.
>
>
WL
So, what you're saying is that after bringing up most of these topics
and getting slam-dunked on them, you are going to run like a rabbit and
pretend they're not relevant to the issue of whether or not the Bible is
inerrant. We are just SOOO impressed.
BTW, this is just a heads up - no one else has responded to this yet,
and I don't want you to think you've actually fooled anyone.
Walt Loy