How can I put this ... your grasp of the subject of logic and valid argumentation leaves something to be desired. A logical argument is not valid for one person and invalid for someone else like you'd like to believe. The most basic primer on logic would explain this.
insulting me doesn't make you any more convincing. what i am saying is that if your "valid" argument is based upon faulty premises or invalid assumptions, then it invalidates the argument. i am questioning your assumptions and you are ignoring the fact that i am not working with the same assumptions as you are.
If you stick with your argument that on this website we don't need to adhere to logical reasoning, that's fine. You can do all the fuzzy reasoning you care to. But to baldly state as a MATTER OF FACT that validity changes from person to person as you wish it to is simply incorrect. You may say that the sun revolves around the earth if you wish but it just isn't so.
you seem very anxious for me to be the evil pope to your righteous galileo when actually, it's a bit more like you being an interior decorator and me being a surveyor. because you refuse to consider the big picture in your pretty little logical model doesn't mean it's not there.
Just because people are discussing religion or philosophy (logic is a branch of philosophy) that doesn't imply that most of us aren't trying to make well reasoned arguments.
but halakha (jewish law) has only a partial relationship to greek-derived logic. sorry. that's just how it is.
You imply that you are merely voicing your opinion but if ever I heard a more authoritarian voice on this website I couldn't tell you whose it might be.
i'm not "merely" doing anything. i am not the one telling you what to *believe*. i am telling you how i interpret my sacred texts according to my received, tried and tested interpretative tradition. you have no business telling me what i should or should not hold as an opinion about my own texts.
quoting your scriptures at great length (and boring to some of us). If this is not to persuade the reader that you are RIGHT, what's it for?
perhaps it is to give you some idea that there may be a bit more to these texts than you think there is.
No one asked for it, you just started spouting this authority and that authority. Like when I stated something from Exodus you failed to stay with the words as they appear in Exodus.
that is simply not the case. the interpretation is verse-by-verse matched with the source text. look, the fact that you can't be arsed to read and understand the explanation doesn't mean the explanation doesn't make sense. you asked, in a rather insulting, "have-you-quit-beating-your-wife" kind of way, how i justified the text saying it was OK to swindle non-jews and i explained how it absolutely wasn't and the way that the tradition gets from your understanding of it to ours. i fail to see how that could be clearer. the Torah is not a simple text. it is a complicated one. you can't have it both ways: feel free to address my explanation if you like, but don't tell me that i can't use jewish commentators to explain jewish texts.
The ##### is really the text one needs to look at because ***** says that @@@ and %%% is really $$$. Try staying with an issue instead of shifting it and hoping no one notices. We do.
this reveals that you have no idea how jewish texts or judaism work. perhaps you would prefer it if i did a little dance and went "oy, vey" a bit so you could think me quaint and olde-worlde.
you smell more like a "professional" (Susma's word not mine) apologist (my word not Susma's).
i think this is a disgraceful thing for you to say and i would like it reported.