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]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

As usual, no answers -- only CLAIMS that you've "addressed [my] issues head-on," while the FACT is that you have merely repeated your own without addressing mine at all -- especially on the subject of the false dichotomy that you have presented over and over, as if it made sense. Nor any defense (in fact, no acknowledgment) of the FACT that you've never studied a single page of Biblical criticism or study, from ANY point of view, or your implicit claim that you're so knowledgable about the Bible that you need none. You know it ALL, you understand it ALL, and you have no need to present ANYTHING other than your UNINFORMED and WILLFULLY IGNORANT opinions.

There were twelve (12) issues presented here. Please show where you have "addressed" any of these, as opposed to merely ducking them and repeating your own unsupported opinions without either argument or sources.

Phffft. No debate happening here, that's clear enough. Just endless repetition.

[cnorman19]

....
Also, what's the point in having a God who demands that we must obey his commandments and directives if we're going to ignore them and instead make up our own non-literal moral ideals?


You tell me why we should believe in a God who demands that we must obey him whilst you simultaneously proclaim that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally and that we need to subjectively interpret it based on our own personal views, ideals, and morality.

If there's a God who had given us commandments and directives that we must follow, then what sense does it make to suggest that we need to do our own personal subjective modification of these commandments and directives by ignoring them literally and pretending they could be twisted into meaning something entirely different?

I think that this is a more than FAIR concern.

How you can pass that off as "pretentious debate" is beyond me.

Thanks, good examples.

In my last I said, and I quote directly (note the bolding) -- "The obvious implication of regarding human intelligence as the final determinant of the meaning of Scripture -- and note, as the article makes clear, that that meaning was NEVER arbitrarily determined nor separated entirely from the text --would be that Scripture is not something to be lightly dismissed and discarded, all the more for those who regard it as a product of the human mind in the first place, not to mention those who see no particular need to wax dogmatic about its origins either way."

Your "response" here is very clearly NOT "addressing" this issue. You're simply and flatly contradicting what I actually said, and doing it by substituting what you perhaps WISH I'd said. It's also pretty clearly in direct conflict with the long quotation in the OP, which you apparently read selectively and chose not to address. At all.

I'd say "Nice try," but like all the rest of your attempts, it wasn't.

Thanks for demonstrating the accuracy of my analysis, and giving such an excellent example of why I consider your debating a "pretense." Not "pretentious," though it's that too....

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

As usual, no answers -- only CLAIMS that you've "addressed [my] issues head-on," while the FACT is that you have merely repeated your own without addressing mine at all --

What exactly ARE you claims?

As far as I can see the only claim you keep harping on is that the Jews don't take the Bible literally and never have. I don't even dispute that claim at all, save for the New Testament Gospels of Jesus.

Phffft. No debate happening here, that's clear enough. Just endless repetition.

I don't see where there is anything to debate.

Your claim seems to be that the Jews have never taken the Bible literally.

You'll get no contest from me on that one in general.

Unless of course you want to count Jesus as a "Jew". The Christian New Testament has Jesus quoted as proclaiming that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven an earth pass.

Well, jots and tittle sounds pretty "literal" to me.

So are you counting Jesus as a "Jew"? If so then I don't see where your claim that Jews haven't taken the Bible literally in the past has any merit. Clearly Jesus took it quite literally right down to every jot and tittle.

~~~~~

My point is that any God who demands that we must obey HIS LAWS has no choice but to spell out what those laws are literally getting every jot and tittle perfectly correct as Jesus apparently believed. Otherwise, how are we supposed to have a clue what he expects from us?

You haven't addressed this issue at all. All you've done is attempt to belittle me as supposedly not being willing to "properly debate".

Moreover, if the accepted Jewish theology is that we are supposed to ignore the Bible literally and instead place our own subjective opinionated moral values and ideals onto the Bible via our non-literal interpretations, then shouldn't my personal subjective opinionated interpretations be every bit as valid as yours?

And if so, then doesn't this make the Bible rather useless since you and I disagree passionately on how it should be "subjectively and non-literally interpreted"?

Obviously I would imagine this God expecting vastly different things from me than what you might imagine him expecting from you.

And if my personal subjective opinionated interpretations aren't as valid as yours then doesn't this bring your whole theology to its knees?

I just don't see how this kind of theology can be made to work in any meaningful way in terms of a supposedly judgmental Godhead who expects us to keep HIS COMMANDMENTS.

Why are you so unwilling to address this CENTRAL ISSUE of your entire theology?

[Divine Insight]

Finally, I see some hint of a response to my issues:

In my last I said, and I quote directly (note the bolding) -- "The obvious implication of regarding human intelligence as the final determinant of the meaning of Scripture -- and note, as the article makes clear, that that meaning was NEVER arbitrarily determined nor separated entirely from the text --would be that Scripture is not something to be lightly dismissed and discarded, all the more for those who regard it as a product of the human mind in the first place, not to mention those who see no particular need to wax dogmatic about its origins either way."

I just don't buy into this apology. And that's what it amounts to.

For one thing history has demonstrated quite clearly that intelligent humans do not agree on the meaning of these scriptures. Therefore the claim: ""The obvious implication of regarding human intelligence as the final determinant of the meaning of Scripture" has no merit.

There is no "obvious implication" of human intelligence as being the final determinant of the meaning of these scriptures. That itself is nothing more than a hope and dream of theologians that hasn't panned out in reality.

So if that's what they are relying on, then I just don't see where it has any merit.

Your "response" here is very clearly NOT "addressing" this issue. You're simply and flatly contradicting what I actually said, and doing it by substituting what you perhaps WISH I'd said. It's also pretty clearly in direct conflict with the long quotation in the OP, which you apparently read selectively and chose not to address. At all.

All I saw in the quotation in the OP was continual arguments that Jews don't take the Bible literally and never have, even in ancient times. In fact, they even harp on how this would be IMPOSSIBLE.

As far as I'm concerned they have actually MADE MY POINT.

And they have also contracted the claims of the most famous Jew in all of history who proclaimed that no one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law. Clearly he didn't think it was impossible to take the Bible literally for ever jot and tittle written.

I'd say "Nice try," but like all the rest of your attempts, it wasn't.

Thanks for demonstrating the accuracy of my analysis, and giving such an excellent example of why I consider your debating a "pretense." Not "pretentious," though it's that too....

You seem to be in total denial of what's even taking place in this thread.

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

Not even going to get NEAR the whole subject of the Oral Torah -- the subject of the OP -- which of course knocks your whole thesis, about a supposed "literal" approach that never existed and was never an issue, into a cocked hat as the gross and silly oversimplification that it is, are you? You keep trying to limit the "debate" to YOUR arguments and claims, without EVER even ACKNOWLEDGING any other points of view or arguments or even the EXISTENCE of FACTS like the teachings about the Oral Torah. Or are you pretending again, that the OP said anything within a light-year of your facile caricatures?

Like I said: there's no point in pursuing this. Not with YOU, anyway.

[cnorman19]

Yep; there it is, exactly as predicted. Limiting the debate to your conveniently narrow little terms and refusing to allow any other ideas or perspectives into the discussion:

....All I saw in the quotation in the OP was continual arguments that Jews don't take the Bible literally and never have, even in ancient times. In fact, they even harp on how this would be IMPOSSIBLE.

As far as I'm concerned they have actually MADE MY POINT....

Which is, of course, EXACTLY congruent with my last post, where I asked: "Or are you pretending again, that the OP said anything within a light-year of your facile caricatures?"

And so you have. Here, you are playing with words, pretending that the Jewish approach outlined in the OP is tantamount to simply ignoring and discarding the Bible as worthless. What silliness.

You seem to be in total denial of what's even taking place in this thread.

And you seem, as usual, to be incapable of understanding -- or perhaps only admitting -- that YOUR narrow little view of "what's taking place in this thread" is the only true and correct analysis possible, and that no one else's perspective or ideas is worthy of notice.

(Like, for instance, the twelve (12) points in an earlier post of mine that you "didn't have time" to address.... And won't, no doubt. Not ever.)

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

Not even going to get NEAR the whole subject of the Oral Torah -- the subject of the OP -- which of course knocks your whole thesis, about a supposed "literal" approach that never existed and was never an issue, into a cocked hat as the gross and silly oversimplification that it is, are you? You keep trying to limit the "debate" to YOUR arguments and claims, without EVER even ACKNOWLEDGING any other points of view or arguments or even the EXISTENCE of FACTS like the teachings about the Oral Torah. Or are you pretending again, that the OP said anything within a light-year of your facile caricatures?

Like I said: there's no point in pursuing this. Not with YOU, anyway.

Considering that the Christian Gospel has Jesus proclaiming that not one jot nor one tittle of the law shall pass until heaven and earth pass there would clearly be no point in pursuing this with any Christians either.

Jots and tittles do not refer to hearsay oral gossip.

If your theology rejects the written scriptures in favor of pretending to rely on some ancient oral traditions that would be impossible to even know about outside of the written scriptures, then you have no viable theology at all as far as I can see.

You're problem is obviously not with me Charles. You're going to have a problem with any intelligent thinking humans.

Moreover, even if I were willing to go down this road, what would be the result?

As far as I'm concerned I have already considered this scenario and it can't be made to work.

If I allow that it requires an intelligent human to understand the meaning of scriptures (which themselves are written words and not oral stories), I reach the following conclusions as being obvious to me:

The ancient culture that wrote these ancient scriptures clearly made up a culture-centric God.

Their God chose them as his "Chosen People" how lucky are they?

Their God supported all their traditions. He supported their male-chauvinism and social oppression of their very own women. He supported that they could keep slaves from other cultures. He supported that them in their wars with other cultures and even took part in some of those wars. He even supported that they should keep young virgin girls that they capture in these wars. He supported that they should kill any heathens who blaspheme against this God that they have created.

As far as I'm concerned any intellectual analysis of this ancient religion clearly reveals that it's nothing more than a culture imagining some God to be on their side of every issue. That's not even a unique stance in the history of human cultures.

So if I accept your theology that the meaning of these ancient scriptures can only be had by the application of human intellect then I have no choice but to conclude that there is nothing to this religion beyond the obvious fact that this culture made it up to justify their own deeds.

I'm just telling you like it is Charles.

I'm sure you're not going to accept my perspective on this, but that doesn't change the fact that my perspective is a perfectly valid perspective. And it would be held by far more people than just myself.

Tying to pass off my objections as just being some sort of personal objection to Judaism simply isn't a powerful argument against my objections. On the contrary all it amounts to is a dismissal of my objections just to avoid having to seriously address them.

I don't see where speaking about "oral traditions" is meaningful. We clearly can't have any ancient oral traditions to even evaluate. There are none of those around today to even discuss. All that exists today is the written scriptures. That's the only record we even have of any supposed "oral traditions".

And even Jesus would appear to be a fool if he was referring to "oral traditions" in terms of jots and tittle not changing until the end of time.

I think you'll have a very serious problem supporting your "Jewish Theology" as having any meaning in today's world. And perhaps this is why Judaism itself is only a tiny sliver of the Abrahamic Religions. Clearly the Christians and Muslims dominate the Abrahamic theology. If Jews were the only culture left clinging to this theology the vast majority of humans on earth would probably not even know that Judaism even exists. The only reason people know about Judaism today is because Christianity and Islam have their foundational roots clearly planted in the soil of Hebrew Mythology.

[Divine Insight]

(Like, for instance, the twelve (12) points in an earlier post of mine that you "didn't have time" to address.... And won't, no doubt. Not ever.)

I have no clue which 12 points you are referring to.

If you would kindly enumerate them in a list I'll gladly address each and every one of them.

[cnorman19]

Tying [sic] to pass off my objections as just being some sort of personal objection to Judaism....

Another obvious falsehood, and another example of your putting words in my mouth that I've never thought, said, nor written.

And more unanswered arguments, more repetition of your favorite little hobbyhorses, and more attempts to limit the discussion to the terms YOU dictate and find most convenient.

In other words: More of the same....

[cnorman19]

(Like, for instance, the twelve (12) points in an earlier post of mine that you "didn't have time" to address.... And won't, no doubt. Not ever.)

I have no clue which 12 points you are referring to.

If you would kindly enumerate them in a list I'll gladly address each and every one of them.

Riiiight. Like you didn't notice this in my post #11 on this very thread --

"There were twelve (12) issues presented here. Please show where you have "addressed" any of these, as opposed to merely ducking them and repeating your own unsupported opinions without either argument or sources."

And like you "forgot" about it on the other thread.

I'll not be holding my breath in anticipation of your comments -- because those, too, will simply be more of the same.

I don't claim to know if you're really, truly incapable of understanding these ideas -- you've certainly shown no evidence of it thus far, considering your bizarre distortions and caricatures of them -- or if you're just intent on defending your own polemic hobbyhorses and refusing to deal with any and all arguments for other ideas that you can't claim as your own.

Beats me; it's a mystery -- but I find I'm no longer interested in solving it. No hard feelings, I hope, DI. We just don't have anything to talk about.