Nothing you said there has substance
This is how you argue:
"Deny facts. Name call. Think of an insult. Narcississtic reframe".
You're like a broken record
A typical evil Christian
Pot, Kettle, etc.
No, they are not the same.
One is a ficticious creation of human imagination, the other actually lived.
"Tony Stark is made up but Iron Man totally exists!" Jesus and Yahooshua are both made up, Mel. They're the same character.
That's historically inaccurate. The Messiah walked the earth as a Jewish man. He gathered JEWISH men and women to be his disciples.
And his disciples, the followers of the Messiah, the anointed one became Christians. Thus, Christians wrote the new testament.
Show me one Christian sect that doesn't believe "The Holy Bible" is the "inspired word of G-d"
dont hold your breath
Well, that's not what we were talking about- we were talking about not believing in the writings of Paul and a lot of churches ignore him, but you seem to be acting like every christian sect but yours uses the exact same bible. This is absurd. Even setting aside the many many translations in English alone, the various sects have differing numbers of books in their bibles, the Mormons have a third testament, the Catholics have the Apocrypha, and then there's the question of whether or not a given denomination or church is Sola Scriptura or not. Protestants tend to be. Catholics as a rule are not.
This comment fails as a matter of moral philosophy. It's also a contradictory projection of yourself.
This is a bit like saying my computer fails as an off road vehicle, or my cat fails as a dog. It's not meant to be and evaluating it as such is frankly stupid.
Put in a way you might understand, morality was irrelevant to the thrust of my argument.
"Ego" is just a concept that some psycho-babble Freud came up with. It has no inherent moral meaning.
It doesn't need to have moral meaning. Also you're not using the term psycho-babble correctly. Also also I was using the term ego in the colloquial sense, specifically your fragile and easily damaged sense of self.
If someone is justified by The Torah, then that's fine. Nothing wrong with judging yourself by it.
You seek to villify me for using Torah as a standard by which I judge myself, yet you do the same with your Atheistic and secular humanist worldview when you assess yourself.
No, I am saying you don't use the Torah as a standard. Man, I knew you no read the good, but fuck damn, Melly, I literally said you contorted the book into tools to protect yourself rather than use it as a moral guideline and you thought I thought you followed it?
You don't follow the Torah, nor do you judge others by it. You judge yourself and others by a standard you call the Torah, and you sometimes misquote the book to lend weight to your asshattery, but no, what you use to judge your life and the life of others is not the Torah.
And that's the end of where you respond to me, completely ignoring the textual question about the book of Job.
I don't believe that Elohim wants Israelites to be in bad relationships. Israelites are supposed to be TAMIYM and the by-product of that is better relationships.
And yet here you are...
However, what do you do when someone who is your relative, spouse, friend or acquaintance is discovered to be sinful in some way that can be repented of? Then you have to determine: How many times do you rebuke them before you walk away? Should you show Mercy multiple times? At what point do you give up on them?
Too much Mercy can lead to codependency.
It's not mercy that leads to codependency. Also you are deep in codependency right now. Also there's no need to capitalize mercy.
The Torah does not advocate that. Repeatedly making someone a Victim or allowing yourself to be Victimized is not allowed in The Torah. That's when it becomes intentional sin on the part of the Sinner, which results in excommunication
neither victim nor victimized should be capitalized here. Nor sinner.
Also are you intentionally saying that allowing yourself to be victimized is an intentional sin and should result in excommunication?
So why don't you?
Yes, I firmly believe The Torah gives women equal rights to leave a Covenant where the man has defaulted
And you say Marshall has, so again, why don't you?
Automatically, no. I have a right under The Torah to walk away for good without being left with sin on my hands.
If a man (or woman) does not keep their vows/what they agreed beforehand to do in a marriage, or a new agreement during the course of the marriage, they are guilty of breaking the Covenant.
"If someone allows to slip from his mouth an oath to do evil or to do good, and he doesn’t remember that he clearly spoke this oath, then, no matter what it was about, when he learns of it, he is guilty." (Lev. 5:4)
"when a man makes a vow to Adonai or formally obligates himself by swearing an oath, he is not to break his word but is to do everything he said he would do." (Numb 30:1(2))
Okay, so yet again, why not leave the dude?
