How is it not? Christians drive the argument toward a predetermined conclusion rather than objectively following the facts wherever they may lead. That's how council does it in the court of law. Christians will be adversarial to achieve this goal, and not cooperative. This is also just like the courtroom.
Objectivity? Who said anything about that ol' shibboleth? I think you know how me and Mr. P and Mr. K "feel" about that whole subject, not to mention many of the current Philosophical Hermeneuticsts who follow suite somewhere on the same epistemic continuum, right?
But it is, Mr. Omega Man. You have predetermined that Christianity is correct, and you are uncooperative in your pursuit of showing that it is true.
Oh, what a kindred soul you are, NV! I suppose "
Omega Man" isn't far off of the mark, and I'm glad you're perceptive in that way so as to see that about me, but truth be told, I've always kind of thought of my analogous identity as one similar to being an 'extra' protagonist in George Lucas's old film,
"THX-1138."
At least you seem to 'get' me. That's something.
But that requires that you would be willing to drop the faith if the case supporting it is weak enough. Is that on the table for you? Holding an inflexible conclusion does not make you cooperative.
Of course it's on the table ... but then we can get into all of that juicy "meta-epistemology" that makes us wonder: is there a conceptual table, really, or is it just all in your mind that you think it's all just in my mind?
That's got nothing to do with donkeys being unclean. Look up at Exodus 13:1. It's saying that every firstborn, human or animal, belongs to Jehovah. But instead of sacrificing your firstborn to Jehovah, you can sacrifice a lamb instead. The same rule applies for a donkey. That's not saying that a donkey is unclean.
True enough, but that's what I meant by saying that I'm starting 'simply,' because as you already know, I never really think something being 'simple' provides any real answers, especially where just one or two short verses of the Bible are concerned, even verses like Numbers 31:39-40.
This is saying the same thing as above.
Yep.
"
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, [and] cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat."
If that truly is the definition of "clean" as it pertains to animals, then birds are certainly unclean. But birds are sacrificed in the Bible: see Leviticus 1:14.
Did you by chance read Leviticus chapter 11 at all on your own?
Here's another little "simple" tidbit from biblegateway.com, but feel free to vet out the overall meaning that may or may not be there since, obviously, this quote and citation I'm making is way too cursory to be definitive:
Leviticus 27:11 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
11 Donkeys are unfit for sacrifice, so if you promise me a donkey," you must bring it to the priest,
Footnotes:
- 27.11 Donkeys. . . donkey: The Hebrew text has “If you promise me an unclean animal,” which probably refers to a donkey (see Exodus 13.13; 34.20).
But, well, of course birds don't have cloven hooves or chew the cud. They're birds! Right, well, of course donkeys don't have cloven hooves or chew the cud. They're donkeys! So is there some other aspect to this rule I'm not seeing?
There's not a lot, is there? What did you find on all of this, by the way?
You actually had me convinced there for a second. The word "corruption" seems to work well with your idea that foreigners were unclean.
But look at this in the NIV:
24 You must not offer to the Lord an animal whose testicles are bruised, crushed, torn or cut. You must not do this in your own land, 25 and you must not accept such animals from the hand of a foreigner and offer them as the food of your God. They will not be accepted on your behalf, because they are deformed and have defects.
"Corruption" seems to be referring to defects in the animal itself.
Well, again. The semantic implications aren't nicely and systematically laid out in the Torah, are they? I think we can both agree they're not, so that means that we'll have to scrounge for various cross-currents that flow intertextually, and look for any 'echos' of Jewish idiom that may may inferences rather than bold, intellectual statements like we'd find in modern legal terms.
Agreed. This is looking more like a punt.
I never agreed to playing football with you ...
I don't care about political correctness.
I'm glad that's you saying this and not me.