Impending Minimum Wage hike causing restaurants to close

[Cow Poke]

Goes back to another thread.

Yeah, I think the Papster linked to it earlier, but not to any particular posts --- linking to a thread is not particularly helpful.

[Jesse]

Naturally, in my home state of California, there's lots of money grabbing going around. As a result, business are packing up and heading out of state for Texas. California is my home state and I am getting tired of it being destroyed, by the Starlights of the US, who want to take everybodies money and get upset when they decide to move somewhere that isn't taking their money.

73 companies (that they counted) have moved out of the country since 1983 because of high taxes. And it doesn't look like it is slowing down. Of course for Starlight and the others that just means we have to make it harder for them to take their businesses elsewhere. And people wonder why we are in the mess we find ourselves.

[Sam]

I haven't studied it much either. I just find it funny that somebody can seriously claim the Bible is in error in one breath, but wants total 100% total following to what the Bible says when it says things they agree with. How did he determine that part of the Bible is without error, but other parts are?

As I explained to you previously, the fact that I do not hold to inerrancy is irrelevant. Those who do

[lilpixieofterror]

As I explained to you previously, the fact that I do not hold to inerrancy is irrelevant. Those who do believe in inerrancy are logically bound to the proposition that everything in the Bible is without error. One can operate a chain of thought using another's premises — in this case, someone who does believe in inerrancy has to answer questions from that position without ducking the issue.

It's perfectly relevant because you want people to thoroughly follow these passages, you need to explain why. Thus far, you've been unable to explain what parts of the Bible should be taken as being without error and what parts are in error. How did you make that determination and why should I or others follow your claims?

If everyone else wants to stop believing in inerrancy/infallibility, that's fine. Until then, those who believe it as a general principle are bound to it when it comes to inconvenient specifics.

Nah, I'm actually bound to take the Bible in context and not just ignore stuff I don't like hearing. You talk about logical consistency, but you refuse to follow your own logic, to its logical ends. How does one determine what parts of the Bible should be listened to and what parts shouldn't? It's a rather simple question; why all the avoidance or am I dead right and you don't have an answer to this very important question?

[Cow Poke]

As I explained to you previously, the fact that I do not hold to inerrancy is irrelevant. Those who do believe in inerrancy are logically bound to the proposition that everything in the Bible is without error.

Simply not true, Sam.

[Sam]

Because the PURPOSE of the Jubilee Law was to PREVENT redistribution -- it was to be KEPT under Jewish control. RETURNED to the owner.



To UNdistribute it.



No, it was ANTI-redistributionalist.

No. No more ANTI-redistributionist than it would be today to "reset" everyone's assets so that the percentage of wealth matched what it was in the 1770s or 1850s or 1960s ... it's redistribution, whatever you want to call it. And since the redistribution under Jubilee was to reset property rights back to the relatively equal distribution among tribes, it's not sensible to call that anti-redistributionist — wealth tends to concentrate among ever-smaller groups, not spread out.

[Cow Poke]

No. No more ANTI-redistributionist than it would be today to "reset" everyone's assets so that the percentage of wealth matched what it was in the 1770s or 1850s or 1960s ... it's redistribution, whatever you want to call it.

You can say that all you want, and even scream and shout it --- doesn't make it true. Show me the actual scripture you're basing that on.

I was being facetious by calling it "anti-redistributionalist" -- playing off your goofy notion that it WAS "distributionalist".

Show me the scripture, Sam.

[Sam]

Simply not true, Sam.

It is true, at least as it pertains to the original autographs. Now an inerrantist can certainly claim that copies of the Bible can be flawed but the general principle remains that the Bible is without error. I've never met a strong inerrantist who believes that the process of copying the Bible was so corrupted over time that the content of the Bible was significantly impacted.

Inerrancy means "without error." Hard to see how someone can hold to inerrancy and still believe that the Bible contains error.

[Sam]

You can say that all you want, and even scream and shout it --- doesn't make it true. Show me the actual scripture you're basing that on.



I was being facetious by calling it "anti-redistributionalist" -- playing off your goofy notion that it WAS "distributionalist".

Show me the scripture, Sam.

You can read the thread where all of this got raked over, if you're interested. Personally, I find it surprising when folks say that they haven't really studied Jubilee, seeing as how Jesus' ministry was begun on the premise and promise of Jubilee.

[Cow Poke]

It is true, at least as it pertains to the original autographs.

So NOW you backpedal.

Now an inerrantist can certainly claim that copies of the Bible can be flawed but the general principle remains that the Bible is without error. I've never met a strong inerrantist

So NOW you qualify it as a "strong" interrantist...

That's not what you said. HERE is what you said...

Those who do believe in inerrancy are logically bound to the proposition that everything in the Bible is without error.

Flat out not true.

who believes that the process of copying the Bible was so corrupted over time that the content of the Bible was significantly impacted.

Wow... "so corrupted"...

Inerrancy means "without error." Hard to see how someone can hold to inerrancy and still believe that the Bible contains error.

Well, it's hard for YOU to see, because you're all knowed up!

[Cow Poke]

You can read the thread where all of this got raked over, if you're interested.

Or YOU could actually produce the scripture!

Personally, I find it surprising when folks say that they haven't really studied Jubilee, seeing as how Jesus' ministry was begun on the premise and promise of Jubilee.

I think it's pretty obvious that YOU haven't studied it. I'm just more honest than you.

[Sam]

So NOW you backpedal.



So NOW you qualify it as a "strong" interrantist...

That's not what you said. HERE is what you said...



Flat out not true.



Wow... "so corrupted"...



Well, it's hard for YOU to see, because you're all knowed up!

If you believe in inerrancy, you believe that the Bible is without error. Within that, you have those who believe that God protects even the copies from error (most fall largely into this group) and those who believe that significant portions of the Bible are corrupted (e.g., John 8:1-12) but most of the Bible is authentic and without error.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever disputed the role or function of Jubilee in Scripture, meaning that both "strong" and "weak" inerrancy holds such verses to be without error.

So if Crystal holds to inerrancy, she's bound to consider Jubilee law to be inerrant Scripture. That I am no so bound is, as I said, irrelevant to the conversation.

[Sam]

Or YOU could actually produce the scripture!



I think it's pretty obvious that YOU haven't studied it. I'm just more honest than you.

Like I said before, I like people to do their own work.

I've also taken to not suffering through the same debate again and again with folks who are quite obviously uninterested in putting in serious effort. It's a rather pleasant change, to be frank.

[Cow Poke]

Like I said before, I like people to do their own work.

Translation -- I haven't got a leg to stand on, so I'm going to play this goofy "do their own work" card. What a fraud.

I've also taken to not suffering through the same debate again and again with folks who are quite obviously uninterested in putting in serious effort. It's a rather pleasant change, to be frank.

Scripture, Sam. That's all I'm asking --- provide the scriptural basis upon which you make your goofy claim. Or be man enough to admit you can't support it.

[Cow Poke]

If you believe in inerrancy, you believe that the Bible is without error.

In the original manuscripts. You kinda left that part out.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever disputed the role or function of Jubilee in Scripture, meaning that both "strong" and "weak" inerrancy holds such verses to be without error.

So if Crystal holds to inerrancy, she's bound to consider Jubilee law to be inerrant Scripture. That I am no so bound is, as I said, irrelevant to the conversation.

Wow.... how, exactly, does that prove YOUR goofy notion that Jubilee was about "redistribution"?

So, let's get back to that, and you can please stop hiding behind this "everybody has to do their own work" canard.