Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Pudgy]

2 hours ago, Many Problems said:

Have you considered the possibility that the other person may not have the same ability as you to magnify a scan? Consequently, your response seems nonsensical. You definitely have the copy, and boy, did you blow it out of proportion! What a character you are.

The point is, that you offered as proof and scholarly backup of your assertions complete gobbledegook that you yourself had not read …. AND it was so blurred and fuzzy it was impossible for anyone to read.

Your “proof” was a bluster and a bluff that failed.

Any smartphone has the ability to enlarge photos and take screenshots as I did.

My phone is 8 years old and will do that, and did do that.

Your credibility is ZERO because of the WAY you try to prove your points.

[Pudgy]

… Being right covers a multitude of sins, a concept totally foreign to you.

An argument based only on bluster and bluff, as yours was, can be safely disregarded.

PLUS, If you read in Latin, everything sounds much more profound …..

[Pudgy]

The first resort of an incompetent is an ad-hominem attack based only on their disregardable opinion.

Every reply you give further destroys your credibility. 

 

[Anna]

And this is why we have the closed club, so we don't have to put up with many Allen Smiths with many problems, and his buddy George. Oh why, oh why, did I even start commenting here I ask myself.

[Thinking]

39 minutes ago, Anna said:

And this is why we have the closed club, so we don't have to put up with many Allen Smiths with many problems, and his buddy George. Oh why, oh why, did I even start commenting here I ask myself.

I’m surprised I did too…but Miles was an attraction…..and others had left….

[TrueTomHarley]

On 10/31/2023 at 7:57 AM, Many Miles said:

Scoring points is infantile and I'll have no part in it. But relevant questions deserve answering, particularly when they are as simple as 2 + 2.

Ooh. That being the case, can you send any unwanted points my way?

On 10/31/2023 at 8:24 AM, Many Miles said:

when a question can be answered with a single word it gets confusing when an avalanche is offered in response.…. "Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident,

No.

On 10/31/2023 at 8:24 AM, Many Miles said:

Aaron could have acted to check Moses without instilling a rebellion. All he had to do was say aloud something to the effect of "You mean Jehovah, not us." But he didn't do that.

Still no. Each one will carry his own load. Have you ever sat in on a meeting where one participant feels obliged to correct every slip of the tongue of another?

[TrueTomHarley]

On 10/31/2023 at 12:54 PM, Many Miles said:

Were I to ask whether Adam should have acted to check Eve's action in Eden to eat of the tree of knowledge, my guess is you'd have a ready answer

Good comparison. 

Yes in the first instance, no in the second. Yes in the first because of headship. Adam had it. No in the second because Aaron did not.

I admit there’s an appeal to the #2 guy correcting the faux pas of the one who has headship. Trouble is, once it begins it never ends. Then, you soon discover that the #2 guy is overall less qualified than the #1–which partly accounts for why the #1 was appointed 1 to begin with.

Since you’ve presented an imperfect comparison, not so imperfect as to be sophistry, but imperfect nonetheless, I will too:

Do you think Steve Jobs’ or Elon Musk’s #2 person should have corrected Steve or Elon every time they impulsively fired someone? (Both of them fired many, often on a whim, often unjustly)

Bear in mind that Jobs gave you that iPad you’re writing on and Musk that Tesla you covet. 

[Many Miles]

33 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do you think Steve Jobs’ or Elon Musk’s #2 person should have corrected Steve or Elon every time they impulsively fired someone? (Both of them fired many, often on a whim, often unjustly)

Bear in mind that Jobs gave you that iPad you’re writing on and Musk that Tesla you covet. 

Neither Steve Jobs nor Elon Musk would make the mistake of surrounding themselves with Yes-men. Each would depend on good minds around them to check their actions when it would be prudent to do so. Nevertheless, this is not a good example for the purpose you use it for, which reason will follow.

We're not talking about Jobs or Musk. We're talking about whether God expects unlimited obedience to subordinates that He (God) has put in place. In your example you've placed Jobs/Musk at the top. The one at the top in my biblical example is God; not Moses. Moses, though a God appointed spokesman, was not the top dog. The top dog was God. God punished Aaron for his passive support of Moses when he should have given that passive support. Aaron could have acted (respectfully if need be) to check Moses' action at Meribah had he appropriately prioritized his loyalties; his obedience.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

We're not talking about Jobs or Musk

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You’re just using one of those crummy Android jobs and driving a Yugo.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, TrueTomHarley said:

...and driving a Yugo

Now, that would be wrong. Not to mention weird. You'd have to be a special kind of person with a special set of mechanical skills.

Can't imagine Jobs or Musk driving one. But were we to find a photo of it, that would be worth sharing!

[TrueTomHarley]

7 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Can't imagine Jobs or Musk driving one. But were we to find a photo of it, that would be worth sharing!

Click and Clack, auto mechanics who had a schtick on radio, used to say the grates on the back were for keeping your hands warm as you were pushing it. (I do like the price, though)

[Many Miles]

18 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Click and Clack, auto mechanics who had a schtick on radio, used to say the grates on the back were for keeping your hands warm as you were pushing it.

Loved that program! And, they were correct. 100%