On reading the Torah literally

[cnorman19]

Some insist that the Hebrew Bible (which Christians call "The Old Testament"), and particularly that most central and ancient part of it called the Torah, the five Books of Moses which contain the foundation of all the rest -- is self-evidently intended to be read literally, as a message given directly by God to humans which is not to be questioned or "interpreted" in any way. But even the most cursory examination of the text reveals that that approach is quite literally impossible, even if one accepts the Divine origin of the Torah; the Bible itself does not allow it -- and as it happens, that approach has never been taken by anyone other than Christians of relatively modern times. Indeed, those who wrote or edited the final version of the Torah themselves never intended it to be so used.

The reason for that fact, and the proof of it, is simple and clear: There was never only a written Torah. There were always two; a written Torah and an oral Torah, each dependent upon and coexisting with the other.

(The following is from The Jewish Virtual Library, one of the few really reliable sources online for information on Jewish history and teachings. Some emphases have been added in boldface)

ORAL LAW (Heb. תּוֹרָה ש�ֶבְּעַל־פֶּה), the authoritative interpretation of the Written Law (*Torah, which is the text of the *Pentateuch) which was regarded as given to Moses on Sinai, and therefore coexistent with the Written Law. This view of the Oral Law was a fundamental principle of the rabbis. The Written and Oral Laws constitute together "two that are one." "It is related that a certain man stood before Shammai and said 'Rabbi, How many Torahs have you?' The rabbi replied 'Two – one written and one oral'" (ARN1 15, 61; cf. Sif. Deut. 351). There is a strong and close bond between the Written Law and the Oral Law, and neither can exist without the other – both from the dogmatic point of view and from that of historical reality. The Oral Law depends upon the Written Law, but at the same time, say the rabbis, it is clear that there can be no real existence for the Written Law without the Oral. The need for the positing of the existence of the Oral Law is inherent in the very character and nature of the Torah. The statutes of the Written Law could not have been fulfilled literally even in the generation in which they were given, since "that which is plain in the Torah is obscure, all the more that which is obscure" (Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3, 35; cf. Moses of Coucy in Semag, introduction: "For the verses contradict and refute each other," and "the statements in the Written Law are vague"). Even those statutes of the Torah that appear to be clearly formulated and detailed contain more that is obscure and requires explanation than what is manifest and understandable. The reasons given for this are many and various. The Written Law contains contradictions (cf., e.g., Deut. 16:3–4 with 16:8), and there is a lack of clarity and definition: The law "he shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 21:12 et al.) does not state whether by stoning, burning, or some other method not mentioned in the Torah. "And ye shall afflict your souls" (Lev. 16:31) does not indicate whether it means by mortification of the body through ascetic practices, by fasting, or in some other manner. The prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath does not specify the nature of work (see below). "And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart and yet no harm follow… But if any harm follow…" (Ex. 21:22–23) does not make it clear whether the "harm" refers to the woman or her embryo. Dimensions and quantities are not given, e.g., in the precepts of leket, *shikhḥah, and *pe'ah, or *terumah (the priestly portion), etc. Individual laws are given without any indication of whether the law is confined to that particular case or whether it is to be regarded merely as an example of a category of laws, e.g., the law that a slave goes free if his master destroys his eye or his tooth (Ex. 21:26–27).

There are lacunae, and laws which are not explicitly stated but to which mere passing reference is made (thus the only reference to the laws of sale and acquisition is the prohibition against overreaching – *ona'ah); there is no reference to the laws of marriage, while the law of divorce is mentioned only incidentally in connection with the injunction that a man may not remarry his divorced wife after she has remarried and become divorced again (Deut. 24:1–4); the Torah enjoins that one sentenced to be flogged may not have more than the fixed number of lashes inflicted (Deut. 25:1–3), but nowhere does it specify which transgressions involve the punishment of a flogging. From the above it seems clear that it was impossible for life to be regulated solely in accordance with the Written Law ("and I should like someone to adjudicate between two litigants on the basis of the weekly portions, Mishpatim [Ex. 21–24] and Ki Teẓe [Deut. 21:10–25:19]" – Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3:35). It may even be inferred from the Written Law itself that immediately after it was given there already was difficulty in understanding it. Thus, e.g., it is apparent that until he heard it explicity from God, Moses did not know what the penalty was for the transgression of gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32–35; cf. Sif. Zut. 15:34: "Eliezar b. Simeon says: Moses did not know that he was liable to death, nor did he know how he should be executed, as can be inferred from the reply given: 'And the Lord said unto Moses: the man shall be put to death,' i.e., he is liable to death; how shall he put to death? He [God] replied: by stoning"; cf. also the case of the blasphemer in Lev. 24:10–23). As stated above, there is no definition in the Pentateuch of what constitutes work in connection with the Sabbath (or the Day of Atonement), only some of the things forbidden being explicitly mentioned (plowing, reaping, kindling fire). Furthermore, in connection with the desecration of the Sabbath, in one and the same verse (Ex. 31:14) two different punishments – death and *karet – are given. From the point of view of its judicial literary form, the Written Law is in fact no different from other early Oriental statutes which never exhausted or aimed at exhausting all the details of the laws given.

If, therefore, the statutes of the Torah could not be properly understood in the generation in which it was given, how much less could it be understood by later generations? In addition to this consideration, it was a fundamental doctrine of the rabbis that the Torah was given by God for all time, that it would never be exchanged for another Torah and certainly never rescinded, and that it provided for all possible circumstances which might arise at any time in the future. Nevertheless, in practice, changing conditions – social, economic, etc. – raised many new problems, as well as the question of their solution in accordance with the Torah. The new situations and spheres of human activity which arose, for which the Written Law did not provide, could not be ignored. In fact, from the beginning the Written Law was the basis of authority of the Oral Law for the future (Deut. 17:8–11 and see below). It can thus be regarded as a historical fact that the Oral Law existed not merely from the moment the Written Law was given (and in this sense it is correct to say that the Written and Oral Laws were given together to Moses at Sinai), but it may even be maintained that the Oral Law anticipated the Written Law, as the Written Law not only assumes the observance of the Oral Law in the future but is in effect based on its previous existence. Since the written law relies – by allusion or by its silence – on statutes, customs, and basic laws not explicitly mentioned in it (marriage, divorce, business; see above), these statutes are ipso facto converted into a part of the Oral Law.

The impossibility of the Written Law existing without an Oral Law can also be demonstrated from Jewish history. The development of the Oral Law can be traced throughout the books of the Bible, especially in the prophets and the hagiographa, in the Jewish literature of the time of the Second Temple (Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, in Jewish Hellenistic *literature, and in the early Targums of the Bible), the talmudic literature and the rabbinical literature throughout the generations (see *Halakhah). Even the dissenting sects outside normative Judaism, as long as they did not abandon Judaism completely, did not maintain the Written Law without an Oral Law: the *Sadducees possessed a "Book of Decrees – who were to be stoned, who burnt, who beheaded, and who strangled" (the scholium to Megillat *Ta'anit); the Judean desert sect developed, especially by means of biblical exegesis, a most ramified halakhah which has survived in its works (in particular in the Damascus Covenant, the Manual of Discipline and other works; see Dead Sea *Scrolls); and a most ramified halakhah also developed among the *Karaites. In the relationship of the Written to the Oral Law there exists a kind of paradox, both interesting and characteristic. From the dogmatic point of view the Oral Law has its basis in, and derives its validity from, explicit verses in the Written Law, but at the same time the Written Law itself obtains its full validity and its authority for practical halakhah from the Oral Law. The Written Law in fact establishes the authority of the Oral Law by laying down that "if there arise a matter too hard for thee, thou shalt turn unto the judge that shall be in those days," and "according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee from that place… According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee shalt thou do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left" (Deut. 17:8–11). Yet it follows precisely from those very verses themselves that it is the Oral Law itself which determines what the halakhah of the Written Law is in practice, including the true meanings (as distinct from the theoretical philological meanings) of those very verses (Deut. 17:8–11) themselves.

Furthermore the Oral Law lays down explicitly that from the moment of the giving of the Written Law – "from Heaven," at Sinai, but in the language of men and to men – it is handed over absolutely to the judgment of the human intelligence of the scholars of the Oral Law, who accept the "yoke of the kingdom of Heaven" but give halakhic ruling according to their understanding ("henceforth no prophet can innovate anything" – Sifra, Be-Ḥukkotai, 13:7; cf. Shab. 104a), since "it is not in Heaven" (TJ, MK 3:1, 81d; BM 59b – based upon Deut. 30:12). Though indeed this rule was not accepted without protest, yet those who objected belonged to the fringes of Judaism, and it was not they who determined the halakhah. The Oral Law is able to circumvent the Written Law (see TJ, Kid. 1:2, 59d). In consequence of this provision, Maimonides, following the talmudic sages, ruled that "in an emergency any bet din may cancel even the words of the (written) Torah… in order to strengthen religion and to prevent people from transgressing the Torah. They may order flagellation and punish for breach of law, but such a ruling may not be effected permanently. Similarly, if they see a temporary need to set aside a positive precept, or to transgress an injunction in order to bring many back to religion, or in order to save many Israelites from grief in other matters, they may act in accordance with the needs of the time; just as the physician amputates a hand or a leg in order to preserve the life, so the bet din may rule at some particular time that some precept of the Torah may be transgressed temporarily in order that it may be preserved" (Yad, Mamrim 2:4). Then the sages rightly maintained that the Oral Law is the major and the main part (i.e., both in quantity and quality) of the Torah. "The Holy One made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that transmitted orally" (Git. 60b; cf. TJ, Pe'ah 2:6, 17a: those given orally are beloved"). The Oral Law, which is well-nigh sovereign in relation to the Written Law, is the "mystery" (μνστή�ιον) of the Holy One (Tanḥ. Ki Tissa 34, et al.; though the sources speak of the *Mishnah, it is certain that the whole oral law is intended) because of the essential nature of its being given orally. It is this nature of the Oral Law – that it was given orally – that determines its vitality and organic development; it is not immutable and fossilized but alive and evolving. This vitality, however, could only be preserved in words not fixed in writing and in a binding and unchangeable form but in words developing continually and unceasingly. As mentioned, the Sadducees had a book of decrees in writing which was their "Oral Law" (the scholium to Meg. Ta'an.), and therefore according to their outlook the whole of the Torah too was "prepared in writing" (Kid. 66a – according to early printed versions and Haggadot ha-Talmud, Constantinople, 1511, 56d), i.e., the written word obligates. The Pharisees, however, claimed that the distinguishing feature and authority of the Oral Law is embedded in the fundamental rule (Deut. 31:19), "put it in their mouths" (the scholium to Meg. Ta'an.). The Oral Law was handed over to the sages, by means of whose words it is fixed and evolves from generation to generation. It is this nature and this sovereignty that are the real will of the Written Law, which was given on the basis that it be explained by means of the Oral Law. This, apparently, is the reason that although there is a disciple who expounds "more than was spoken to Moses at Sinai" (ARN2 13, 32), yet "even what a distinguished disciple will rule in the presence of his teacher was already conveyed to Moses at Sinai" (TJ, Pe'ah 2:6, 17a; cf. Meg. 19b and SEZ 2:171 "Surely both the Bible and Mishnah were communicated by the Almighty"). The meaning of all these and of similar sources is that from the point of view of its functional essence, the whole of the Oral Law was given to Moses at Sinai, since "the Torah itself gave the sages a mind to interpret and to declare" (Sif. Num. 134; cf. "matters not revealed to Moses were revealed to Akiva" – (Tanḥ. B. Num. 117; for its true meaning cf. Men. 29b – the aggadah of Moses entering the yeshivah of *Akiva – "and he did not know what they were saying," not even a detail of a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai). Even the Holy One repeats, as it were, a halakhah as spoken by the sages (PdRK, ed. by D. Mandelbaum (1962), 73, et al.).

There is much more at the site concerning the attitudes and approaches of the other two major movements in Judaism, Reform and Conservative; but the above is an excellent explanation of the Orthodox approach, which should put an end to discussions about the "literal" or "verbatim" reading of the Torah, unassisted by any "interpretation." Such a thing is clearly rendered impossible by the nature of the text itself; and indeed, Jewish tradition and teaching -- from the time of the giving of the Torah, never mind the later editing and redaction of the text into its final form -- has never, as in not ever, held that such a reading is even possible.

[cnorman19]

I mean, didn't you even reject the very passages you are trying to impose on the Jewish faith?

I'm not trying to "impose" anything on the Jewish faith. They are more than welcome to believe whatever they so desire.

All I'm saying is that if they are going to try to "justify" their beliefs to the rest of the world then I'm not buying into their "justifications".

That's all.

I'm not trying to tell them what to believe, or even what they "should" believe.

All I'm doing is pointing out that their "apologetic arguments" to defend the rationality of their "faith" to others doesn't fly in my book.

That's all I'm saying.

Really? Here's a direct, VERBATIM quote from you on the thread in General Chat:

The central thesis of your position is simple enough: (One) You demand that I understand and believe in the Bible in a certain way, and if I don’t, then my religion is — your words here — “nothing more than extreme "denial" disguised as abstract ambiguity� and “pretending.� Put another way: You have insisted, and repeatedly, that if I don’t believe in the Bible in the Divinely given, supernaturally-received way which YOU DEMAND I that accept, that I must not actually believe in God at all and my religion is ipso facto mere faking and hypocrisy.

I agree that you understand my position.

And here’s another, from THIS thread:

I see no value in [the Jews’] "religion". As far as I can see their religion has no literal value, and apparently they aren't even sure if has to do with any God anyway.

As far as I can see the Jews have the most wishy-washy religion on Earth. They've attempted to water it down to the point where its basically meaningless and has nothing of value to offer anyone.

And like I say, they may as well be worshiping Alice in Wonderland as their "Holy Book" because they absolutely REFUSE to even claim that there is anything "Holy" about their book to begin with. They flat out DENY that it came from any God.

What a silly religion.

At least Christianity and Islam believe that there is an actual God behind their "Holy Books". So with them we have something that can be debated.

The Jews apparently even refuse to claim that there is a God behind their "Holy Books" or religion.

As far as I'm concerned the Jews are in extreme denial over what their own "Holy Texts" have to say. No doubt because they realize that they make no literal sense, yet for some reason they don't want to have to give up the religion. No doubt because it has become such an important part of their culture. So they feel the need to keep it in spite of the fact that it makes no sense.

Sounds like rather more than a mere matter of disagreement about "apologetic arguments" to me.

No one here has ever attempted any "apologetic arguments" anyway, since Jews don't do "apologetics." All anyone has tried to do is explain the content of the Jewish faith and the Jewish approach to Scripture; and what Divine Insight has done is posted flat-out falsifications and caricatures of those explanations, along with blatant efforts to demean and denigrate the Jewish religion and the Jewish people. Even when corrected multiple times, the same tired misstatements and distortions keep appearing.

I'm perfectly OK with someone -- ANYONE -- not agreeing with the Jewish religion or with Jewish ideas, or my own for that matter; but what's the point of distorting and falsifying those ideas, twisting and selectively cherrypicking bits and pieces from links and references, and quoting passages from the books of OTHER religions, all in an obvious effort to portray Judaism as a straight-up fraud and pretense, e.g. --

...the only way to keep the [Jewish] religion afloat is to turn to extremely vague and meaningless non-verbatim abstraction so they can reject the Bible verbatim whilst pretending that it still has some sort of religious value through "Personal Interpretations" which are never anything near what the Bible actually has to say.

-- and Jews as lying hypocrites, closet agnostics with nothing like an actual religious faith:

In short, it's not that I don't understand "Modern Day Jews", it's just that I don't feel their position on their very own folklore makes any rational sense.

I also feel that they are extremely confused and unsure of what they believe. If they are all doubting agnostics like Charles, then why do they take this religion so seriously and go to temples or walls to read scriptures and bob their heads in spiritual rituals?

Are they nothing more than doubting agnostics that just do this in the spirit of Pascal's Wager that the scriptures might actually be true even though they claim to no longer actually believe in them as written verbatim?

This seems to me to be the message of "Modern Day Judaism" they are basically saying, "Look we just don't take this stuff as seriously as the Christians do, but we keep going through the motions in the spirit of Pascal's Wager just in case." ....

I just don't see why anyone should care what "Modern Day Jews" believe. They need to understand that to the rest of the world they just appear to be a culture who's ancient folklore and religious mythologies have simply crashed and burned to the point where the Jews themselves don't even take it seriously anymore.

All of which is, of course, a pure caricature based on nothing but Divine Insight's distortions and twisting of my own statements.

There's a lot more going on here than mere disagreement. THAT much is obvious.

[Divine Insight]

All of which is, of course, a pure caricature based on nothing but Divine Insight's distortions and twisting of my own statements.

There's a lot more going on here than mere disagreement. THAT much is obvious.

I though you had already agreed that we shouldn't address each others posts?

"Divine Insight's distortions and twisting of my own statements"?

This is a personal accusation Charles.

~~~~~

All I'm saying is that if the Jews apologetic argument is that they don't take their Bible literally and they claim that their culture never has, then that argument doesn't hold water.

Getting side-tracked into making derogatory personal attacks toward another member's character or imagined motivations etc., is beyond the scope of where I care to go.

My position is quite simple.

1. Judaism (and the Jews) have historically not been in consensus that the Bible should not be taken literally.

2. I also hold that The Old Testament (or Torah) demands to be taken literal. (nothing personal intended here)

The Old Testament is filled with statements like "The LORD thy GOD has commanded these things".

What value do statements like this have if they aren't to be taken literally?

What would be a non-literal interpretation? That there is no "LORD thy GOD" making these demands? If that's the case hen WHO is making them?

I don't even want to bring Charles into consideration on a personal level concerning these questions.

There is nothing "personal" intended here from me.

I ask ANY JEW to address these concerns.

I would like to avoid any "personal exchange" with Charles entirely.

I object to his continual personal attack on my motivations and intent. There's nothing to it.

I'm not trying to "twist or distort" anything that Charles has to say. If he feels that I'm not understanding his position so be it. No need to accuse me of derogatory personal actions or motivations.

I have no personal war with Charles. And I want no parts of any personal disputes.

I would like to avoid all personal innuendos and accusations if at all possible.

I NEVER said that Jews are "lying hypocrites". Where does Charles get off "twisting" my responses into such extremely derogatory claims?

[Goat]

I mean, didn't you even reject the very passages you are trying to impose on the Jewish faith?

I'm not trying to "impose" anything on the Jewish faith. They are more than welcome to believe whatever they so desire.

All I'm saying is that if they are going to try to "justify" their beliefs to the rest of the world then I'm not buying into their "justifications".

That's all.

I'm not trying to tell them what to believe, or even what they "should" believe.

All I'm doing is pointing out that their "apologetic arguments" to defend the rationality of their "faith" to others doesn't fly in my book.

That's all I'm saying.

Then why are you quoting a Christian book at Jews about how Scripture should be interpreted? What you claim you are doing, and what it appears you are doing are at odds with each other. How do you harmonize that apparent contradiction?

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 42 by Divine Insight]

Did you, or did you not, post the statements I quoted?

[Divine Insight]

I mean, didn't you even reject the very passages you are trying to impose on the Jewish faith?

I'm not trying to "impose" anything on the Jewish faith. They are more than welcome to believe whatever they so desire.

All I'm saying is that if they are going to try to "justify" their beliefs to the rest of the world then I'm not buying into their "justifications".

That's all.

I'm not trying to tell them what to believe, or even what they "should" believe.

All I'm doing is pointing out that their "apologetic arguments" to defend the rationality of their "faith" to others doesn't fly in my book.

That's all I'm saying.

Then why are you quoting a Christian book at Jews about how Scripture should be interpreted? What you claim you are doing, and what it appears you are doing are at odds with each other. How do you harmonize that apparent contradiction?

I'm not sure what "apparent contradiction" you are referring to.

As I see it the "Topic of Debate" is "On reading the Torah Literally".

The "apologetic argument" seems to be that the Jews have valid rational reasons for dismissing any need to take the Torah Literally. And even more that they claim to have culturally always been this way clear back to ancient times.

So my argument against that apologetic claim is two fold:

My first claim is that the Torah was clearly written to be taken literally contrary to what the Jews are claiming.

Why? Because the Torah makes claims like, "The LORD thy God" has commanded these things".

And so I ask what sense does it make to take this anything other than literally?

Moreover, if we take it non-literally, then the question arises "Just WHO is it that was making those demands if not literally a God?" And why should we respect the authority of whoever made those demands if they didn't literally come from a God?

And my second point is simple to point out that it's not true that the Jews have never taken the Torah Literally historically. There is plenty of evidence that many ancient Jews did indeed demand a literal approach to the Bible.

I bring up the Christan New Testament and Matthew because most scholars agree that Matthew was a book written for a Jewish audience in an attempt to get Jews to believe in and support Jesus as the "messiah".

And this is why I feel that it's relevant evidence that whoever wrote the Book of Matthew felt a need to proclaim that Jesus supported every "jot and tittle" of the written law.

Why would any author who was trying to convince the Jews to embrace Jesus as a Jewish Messiah feel that it would be important to try to convince the Jews that Jesus supported every "jot and tittle" of the written law, if the Jews themselves were not even concerned with verbatim literalism?

A person doesn't need to believe in Christianity to see the historical relevance of what is written in Matthew.

I'm not trying to "convince" the Jews that they must believe in every jot and tittle of a literal Bible.

All I'm doing is pointing out that a consistent cultural non-literal approach to the Bible simply does not square with their obvious history. Obviously there were many Jews living around the time of Jesus who were very concerned that the Biblical law be maintained literally down to every jot and tittle.

No need to believe in Jesus or Christianity at all. Jesus could have been a totally fictitious made up character and this would still be relevant because SOMEONE wrote the book of Matthew in an effort to convince Jews to believe in Jesus. And whoever wrote that book understood that it was important to the Jews that every jot and tittle of the Law be upheld verbatim.

So this seems to me to be relevant to the topic at hand.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 42 by Divine Insight]

Did you, or did you not, post the statements I quoted?

I never said, or even implied, that any Jews are "lying hypocrites".

Can you please address the topic subject material only and please refrain from mentioning me on a personal level at all in your posts.

I will gladly do the same for you.

Thank you.

I'm trying my very best to avoid any further personal innuendos.

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]

Did you, or did you not, post the statements I quoted?

[johnmarc]

I simply point out the rational truth. It doesn't matter to me whether we're talking about Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or even Buddhism. When a theology makes absurd claims, they need to be challenged. And IMHO, it's utterly absurd to claim that literally rejecting the Bible makes sense whilst attempting to cling to some sort of "non-literal interpretations".

Can you make "non-literal interpretations" that seem to make SENSE to you?

One can look at the Bible in a consistent and objective manner in a non-literal way by viewing it's themes and assigning importance to themes that occur most often and less importance to themes that rarely occur. For example, the theme that occurs most often in the Bible is support for marginalized individuals. One can understand the Bible in a non-literal fashion and still be supportive of weak and disenfranchised individuals. That can be a religious or Biblical understanding based on predominance. That is objective. That is not an understanding based on individual whim.

The truth is that the Bible has been a hugely important and influential document throughout most of historical times. It is hard to believe that we have created culture largely in its shadow only to recently discover that there is no value in it whatsoever. Even your willingness to put hours and hours into dismissing it gives it credibility that books long ignored don't have.

I am convinced that the Bible cannot be read literally and that there are several ways in which the Bible can be academically and usefully interpreted. I would be willing to have a conversation about the differences between a Jewish view of Scripture and a Progressive view of Scripture. Progressives use themes---the Jewish perspective has other academic tools (I think)

The sense that the Bible is useless is false
The sense that the Bible is wholly evil is false
The sense that any non-literal interpretation amounts to individual whim is false.

Some of your questions can be easily answered in Progressive Christianity. Jesus was a man who died on a cross (and stayed dead) He lost an argument to a woman, got lost in Galilee, made a mistake about the timing of the Parousia, and generally made mistakes like any other man. But his general sense of right and wrong lives on today in what we know as Christianity. I personally find myself in a better place, literally, spiritually, and emotionally when I subject myself to the teachings of Christ.

Nothing here claims that you need to do the same.

[johnmarc]

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]

Did you, or did you not, post the statements I quoted?

Divine Insight is usually quick with a rambling, contorted self-introspection (free of any evidence or objective support whatsoever) It may be that you have caught him with his opinions down. It appears, here, that you have given him enough rope...

[Danmark]

Divine Insight is usually quick with a rambling, contorted self-introspection (free of any evidence or objective support whatsoever) It may be that you have caught him with his opinions down. It appears, here, that you have given him enough rope...

Moderator Warning

Absolutely out of line. This is purely personal and does not add to the argument.
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.