So are you saying that his arguments against missionaries are thoughtful and mature? Or are you saying that your response to his arguments, that is, being influenced by them, was thoughtful and mature? I would suggest the former as your remarks on this thread show neither of those attributes.
You have now created 2 problems -- the first is that your anger should be focused on non-Jews because, by your own admission, it is the non-Jew's mission to debunk Christianity. Instead, you focus on Singer, whose mission is to stop missionaries who try to get Jews to abandon Judaism. The second is that you ignored the fact that I presented about Jewish law's opinion about being a Noachide and a Christian.
A weak minded person like you would say that, yes.
and you didn't answer the question.
So rail against him. He's not an anti-missionary. If he didn't get the memo about an element of Jewish law, then that's ok, because he isn't Jewish.
That's what a miracle is, So you both deny and embrace the same thing. Well done.
and it isn't necessarily non-supernatural. So you just deny the ones you don't like?
because, again, you show your lack of knowledge about Judaism, and the blinders of hate that you are wearing.
So are you saying that his arguments against missionaries are thoughtful and mature?
A person can be deceived, due to a lack of knowledge in a specific area of the issue or topic, whatever that might be. At the time, I wasn't familiar with Jewish arguments against Christianity as I am now, hence I was caught off guard and it did affect my faith. I lost it and became an atheist. Through a long process of study and reflection, I returned to Christianity. Calling me "weak-minded" for being influenced by Jewish anti-missionary arguments back in the late 1990s, is misinformed and unnecessary. If a Christian is influenced by Jewish anti-missionary arguments that implies they're "weak-minded"? That's a weak-minded, stupid assumption.
Or are you saying that your response to his arguments, that is, being influenced by them, was thoughtful and mature?
At the time, based on what I knew and had experienced, anyone who values the truth, wouldn't have continued being a Christian or even a theist. My decision to be consistent with my values with respect to the importance of truth as it relates to my faith, was the thoughtful and mature thing to do, at the time.
I would suggest the former as your remarks on this thread show neither of those attributes.
You're entitled to your opinion. Your ad hominem attacks don't strengthen your case against Christianity.
You have now created 2 problems -- the first is that your anger should be focused on non-Jews because, by your own admission, it is the non-Jew's mission to debunk Christianity. Instead, you focus on Singer, whose mission is to stop missionaries who try to get Jews to abandon Judaism. The second is that you ignored the fact that I presented about Jewish law's opinion about being a Noachide and a Christian.
It doesn't matter what his intentions supposedly are, what he does in public, broadcasting his anti-Christian rhetoric, affects everyone, not just the people that he is exclusively targeting, supposedly according to you.
A weak minded person like you would say that, yes.
What you call "weak-minded" is actually being sincerely committed to the truth, whatever that might be.
More, at least I don't defend the sucking of baby penises as you do:
...and make provision within Jewish law for my wife to wear hair (a wig), to cover her hair in public, when the purpose of covering her hair is to cover her beauty.
They cover the beauty of their natural hair with hair that is sexier, and more attractive, than their natural hair, perhaps increasing the attention they receive from men. This is a good example of rabbinic Judaism's fuzzy logic and lame-braininess.
and you didn't answer the question.
I did, you just didn't like the answer.
So rail against him. He's not an anti-missionary. If he didn't get the memo about an element of Jewish law, then that's ok, because he isn't Jewish.
The head anti-missionary in the world supports Him and has essentially made him his partner in His work.
That's what a miracle is, So you both deny and embrace the same thing. Well done.
For me, a so-called "miracle" is simply a form of technology, that appears to us human apes as a violation of the laws of physics or something "metaphysical". I don't deny science as you do. My religion is in line with reality, whereas yours interprets the events described in the Hebrew Bible, as being 100% historical and literal. Do you actually believe the world is only 6000 years old and the universe went helter-skelter when a caveman and his wife ate from the wrong fruit tree?
and it isn't necessarily non-supernatural. So you just deny the ones you don't like?
My faith is reasonable, unlike yours. We recognize that which is self-evident, hence if the Bible is true and there are verses that clearly contradict reality, we interpret it metaphorically, unless there's a reason not to.
because, again, you show your lack of knowledge about Judaism, and the blinders of hate that you are wearing.
Be specific. In what sense or on what issue do I lack knowledge and why do you assume my hate is irrational and blinds me? What proof do you have that hate by default renders one's argument incorrect? Present your evidence.
