I don't think you understand how the law works. There is no duty without employment or some form of relationship.
Again you are taking the moral high road, and not considering what the High Court has done.
Apparently there is method to madness.
I put you in the same basket as gnostic and anyone else that does the same.
Pick a lane.
If you are going to say "these are the reasons the scriptures are false" and then in the exact same breath say "by the way this is what I THINK it is" then your words read like sophistry.
Your skill for verbosity doesn't impress me much gnostic, any fool can recite known history and/or tell me what isn't in the scriptures.
It is your ability to avoid, dance, and/or manipulate my questions that I find impressive! It is clear you didn't pay any attention to what I wrote.
So, if...
So is your conclusion that the lack of names makes the Exodus scripture an unreliable CONTEMPORARY record?
Sure, I can understand your point of view.
It is your use of the word mythological that I do not understand, because what are you saying exactly?
Shouldn’t your conclusion be, there is...
Yes, he was empowered by the Catholic Church which itself was allowed to operate within Australia by the government, so where does the buck stop?
I mean, are they saying the priest didn’t pay a cent of tax in 1971?
High Court decisions, even the one against Pauline Hansen seem to protect the...
I think it would relate to employment laws in Australia when the offending happened in 1971, which was also the same year payroll tax became state governed.
Applying it today, I would imagine any “fringe benefit” of being a priest would be considered income and therefore employment, but...
I was thinking about the commentators, ring girls, support teams, venue operators, as well as people coming together all around the world to watch (spending money on food, alcohol etc).
The event has likely employed tens of thousands of people tonight.
What is obvious is your understanding of the word censorship is different to mine.
Labelling a statement, comment, or view as “misinformation” is not censorship.