It is not wrong for Gods servants to be wealthy!!

[KeilanS]

Well if this, as you said, needs to be corrected, why not move it to PM's? This is contributing nothing... and please stop bashing Pet, all she tried to do was stop the argument.

Huh? I was supporting Petunia, certainly not bashing her. I've attempted to re-focus the topic. Do you want to talk about believers being wealthy or poor?

(btw, you could take your comments to PM's too ya know )

I wasn't referring to you about bashing Pet Sorry for not being clearer on that.

And is there really anything left to discuss on the original topic, I guess if so, then you can refocus it... and yes, my earlier comments probably should have been PM's. Right now I'm just hoping the senseless arguing stops.

[Kabowd]

Well if this, as you said, needs to be corrected, why not move it to PM's? This is contributing nothing... and please stop bashing Pet, all she tried to do was stop the argument.

Huh? I was supporting Petunia, certainly not bashing her. I've attempted to re-focus the topic. Do you want to talk about believers being wealthy or poor?

(btw, you could take your comments to PM's too ya know )

I wasn't referring to you about bashing Pet Sorry for not being clearer on that.

And is there really anything left to discuss on the original topic, I guess if so, then you can refocus it... and yes, my earlier comments probably should have been PM's. Right now I'm just hoping the senseless arguing stops.

Well, one solution, you and I could have our own senseless argument and maybe the other one would stop! Ha.

[Fiosh]

Matthew 19:21-22

Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

[Guest shiloh357]

I quite agree that the subject of the Torah is hardly appropriate in this thread, and that the original post should not have been made. But it was, and it was allowed to stand. However, it is very suspicious indeed when parties make objection only after a long debate on the issue, as they may be parties who simply do not like the conclusion that has been reached from it.

The original post about the Torah was mine, and it was made to support the notion that from the beginning the Bible does not teach how to gain personal wealth, and that it does not serve as a personal success manual. I was simply bringing to the discussion the biblical response to the "prosperity" doctrine. You are the one who took off in another direction and made a bunch ridiculous assertions that you could not defend and then attempted to deflect attention away from your impotent arguments.

My post about the Torah was in keeping with the subject matter of the thread, yours were not. I simply responded to your sloppy, anti-Torah "theology."

[KeilanS]

Well, one solution, you and I could have our own senseless argument and maybe the other one would stop! Ha.

That is GENIUS. We will have a huge argument over arguing.... It would be incredible...

[pointer]

Learning not to touch the stove means learning not to make anyone else touch the stove.

Human experience which takes delight in other's pain, pretty much refutes you.

Humans do not take such delight unless they have already been damaged by at least one other human. In other words, they do not delight in inflicting pain per se at all.

That is not what you said I said.

Yes it is. You tried to conntect the Mosaic Law with the Egyptian and Sumerian law saying that the Mosaic law was adapted from Egypt and Sumer

Not so. Kindly read what I actually wrote.

Mere assertion by shiloh is not argument, shiloh.

It is an assertion backed up by your inability to provide a cogent, intelligent refutation.

Until there are material facts to support your pov, I do not think that you assertion is worth any attention. Even if there were such facts, the issue would be even more off topic than this one already is. As it happens, I think it a very interesting topic, and when I have more time I may return to it, in another thread.

At least I have a dictionary.

Dictionaries don't give you working understanding of a concept, and how it plays out in real life.

This use of the word is very well known to academics, and I apologise if it has caused confusion.

[Kabowd]

I quite agree that the subject of the Torah is hardly appropriate in this thread, and that the original post should not have been made. But it was, and it was allowed to stand. However, it is very suspicious indeed when parties make objection only after a long debate on the issue, as they may be parties who simply do not like the conclusion that has been reached from it.

The original post about the Torah was mine, and it was made to support the notion that from the beginning the Bible does not teach how to gain personal wealth, and that it does not serve as a personal success manual. I was simply bringing to the discussion the biblical response to the "prosperity" doctrine. You are the one who took off in another direction and made a bunch ridiculous assertions that you could not defend and then attempted to deflect attention away from your impotent arguments.

My post about the Torah was in keeping with the subject matter of the thread, yours were not. I simply responded to your sloppy, anti-Torah "theology."

This reminds me of a question I had, shiloh. Earlier you were responding about the Proverbs, and talked about how those weren't "promises" made across the board (which I agree). I've also seen people refer to Pentecost (and the book of Acts), claiming that the events that occurred there should happen to all believers....to which I've seen you and AK respond saying that these were "descriptive texts" and not "prescriptive texts". Can you explain in a little more detail what this means? The reason I bring this up here, is because this seems to be what people do alot of the time. They take an event that occurs in scripture and want to apply it to all believers. How is a person to know what are actually "promises" and things that should occur in the life of all believers, and what were specific events or promises made to a specific person/group?

Well, one solution, you and I could have our own senseless argument and maybe the other one would stop! Ha.

That is GENIUS. We will have a huge argument over arguing.... It would be incredible...

Okay, I'll start. You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!

[pointer]

Are you accusing me of lying, shiloh?

If you had the ability to refute what I have presented, you would have done so.

Are you accusing me of lying, shiloh?

If you had the ability to refute what I have presented, you would have done so.

So you are accusing me of lying. Can someone tell me, is that permitted here? Because I may have some catching up to do, if so!

[Kabowd]

I quite agree that the subject of the Torah is hardly appropriate in this thread, and that the original post should not have been made. But it was, and it was allowed to stand. However, it is very suspicious indeed when parties make objection only after a long debate on the issue, as they may be parties who simply do not like the conclusion that has been reached from it.

The original post about the Torah was mine, and it was made to support the notion that from the beginning the Bible does not teach how to gain personal wealth, and that it does not serve as a personal success manual. I was simply bringing to the discussion the biblical response to the "prosperity" doctrine. You are the one who took off in another direction and made a bunch ridiculous assertions that you could not defend and then attempted to deflect attention away from your impotent arguments.

My post about the Torah was in keeping with the subject matter of the thread, yours were not. I simply responded to your sloppy, anti-Torah "theology."

This reminds me of a question I had, shiloh. Earlier you were responding about the Proverbs, and talked about how those weren't "promises" made across the board (which I agree). I've also seen people refer to Pentecost (and the book of Acts), claiming that the events that occurred there should happen to all believers....to which I've seen you and AK respond saying that these were "descriptive texts" and not "prescriptive texts". Can you explain in a little more detail what this means? The reason I bring this up here, is because this seems to be what people do alot of the time. They take an event that occurs in scripture and want to apply it to all believers. How is a person to know what are actually "promises" and things that should occur in the life of all believers, and what were specific events or promises made to a specific person/group?

[pointer]

Exactly. She posts a scripture and he attacked her. This should give us a good indication about his condition. It's really not worth anyone's time even responding to him.

What condition is that? And how was an attack made?