FoggyTown wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:48 pm, BillinDetroit wrote:
Maxwell Lol wrote:
Barry Lennox writes:
The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.
And don't forget Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
There are more, like women talking in church,
The 'talking' was a calling out to their husbands (seated on opposite
sides of the room) making it difficult, if not impossible, for any to
learn what was being taught. They were instructed, if you will read that
passage all the way through, to speak with their husbands privately. So,
let me ask you this ... why were they at the meeting to start with? To
learn or to yak?
marrying a woman who is divorced,
The only place I recall that prohibition is in forbidding a man to
remarry his previous wife after she had married another man. There was a
scheme afoot where the woman would become 'the (temporary) wife' of
another man and the second man would pay money to the first man. Later,
the original husband would remarry her. Lather, rinse, repeat. In
effect, he was pimping her out. If the prohibition is mentioned
somewhere else, please provide a citation. In ALL circumstances,
remarriage is prohibited if the divorce was for any reason other than
adultery. But that limitation should not be understood as applying to
the woman only. The man is a gigged frog if he dumps his missus for
trivial reason, too.
eating shellfish,
I covered that yesterday. Read the 10th chapter of Acts. Slowly.
wearing gold jewelry,
Nope ... not forbidden. Ever. Peter warned against relying upon it as
adornment:
(1 Peter 3:1-6) 3 In like manner, YOU wives, be in subjection to YOUR
own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they
may be won without a word through the conduct of [their] wives,
2 because of having been eyewitnesses of YOUR chaste conduct together
with deep respect. 3 And do not let YOUR adornment be that of the
external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or
the wearing of outer garments, 4 but let it be the secret person of the
heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, which
is of great value in the eyes of God. 5 For so, too, formerly the holy
women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting
themselves to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah used to obey Abraham,
calling him "lord." And YOU have become her children, provided YOU keep
on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror.
This is a portion of a counsel regarding attitude and conduct. To quote
it out of context is to automatically twist it. The qualities to be
valued were spiritual in nature, not the ability to secure a wealthy
husband who could procure the external trappings of prosperity.
exercise,
Nope, Paul warned against concentrating on physical strength to the
exclusion of spiritual strength. Here, with supporting scriptures, is a
fuller explanation of the Bible's view of such exertion:
Proper Use of One's Body. The Christian should appreciate the body God
has given him and should love himself to the extent of caring properly
for his body so that he may be able to present it in acceptable, sacred
service to God. (Ro 12:1) This requires the use of reason and the
maintaining of the body with food and other necessities, as well as
physical cleanliness, but other types of care are even more important.
These involve spirituality, seeking God's Kingdom and his righteousness,
and practicing moral uprightness. (Mt 6:25, 31-33; Col 2:20-23; 3:5) The
apostle counsels: "Bodily training is beneficial for a little; but godly
devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life
now and that which is to come."-1Ti 4:8.
charging interest,
Nope. Interest was restricted in the case of a fellow Jew who needed
money for the necessities of life. Beyond that, interest less than usury
was permitted. This reply is getting long in the tooth already. If you
want scripture citations, just say so.
cross-breeding,
As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses can
breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the offspring (a
mule) is sterile.
etc.
Makes sense to me. Here's another translation and a full quote (not the
cherry picking sort):
(Leviticus 19:19) 19 "'YOU people should keep my statutes: You must not
interbreed your domestic animals of two sorts. You must not sow your
field with seeds of two sorts, and you must not put upon yourself a
garment of two sorts of thread, mixed together."
Let's see now, what sorts of thread did the Israelites have available?
Linen, wool .. cotton? (guessing here).
These all have different care requirements. Mixing them would have
resulted in a garment that couldn't have been kept clean and the hygiene
laws in Leviticus are a major part of the reason why the Israelites
prospered and became populous. Moreover such a garment, shrinking
unevenly, would be a poor design. Additionally, this can be seen as a
comparison to intermingling religions. Modern day 'interfaith' has a
LONG history of failure. It wasn't approved way back then and nothing in
the Bible has changed to show approval for it now.
The covenant of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus and, like a paid off
mortgage, set aside.
(Matthew 5:17-18) 17 "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to
YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest
letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any
means and not all things take place.
The Quran is not the problem. The Bible is not the problem. Ignorance is
the problem.
--
I'm not not at the above address.http://nmwoodworks.com
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 2:48:40 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com
Bill, your biblical erudition is very impressive but I'd say that the
main consideration here is that the Bible makes MANY representations
which, although practical in BC and early AD, are totally unnecessary
or inappropriate in the 21st century.
There is no longer any
significant health hazard in eating pork or shellfish.
Actually, the hazard remains. Trichomoniasis from pork still kills and
shellfish still can harbor toxins / invoke severe allergic reactions.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/cit...fishermen.html
Note the dateline on this article. Thursday, July 12, 2007.
This is the reason that most hams come to you fully cooked. However, if
you read the 10th chapter of Acts, you'll realize that there is no
longer any restriction on their consumption. The laws, after all, were
imposed to shelter natural Israel, as Gods chosen people, from harm. The
book of Acts was written after the murder of Jesus. The relationship
between Jehovah and the Jews had changed. Those laws are still available
to read ... and they will still afford the same level of protection from
a danger that still exists. But we are no longer under compulsion to
obey them. Obedience, and its rewards, are now entirely voluntary.
This from our friends at wikipedia:
"Red tide" is also commonly used on the northern east coast of the
United States, and particularly in the Gulf of Maine. This type of bloom
is caused by a species of dinoflagellate known as Karenia brevis. These
blooms of organisms cause severe disruptions in fisheries of these
waters as the toxins in these organism cause filter-feeding shellfish in
affected waters to become poisonous for human consumption due to saxitoxin.
My Maytag and
Oxydol will handle ANY combination of fabrics.
Most religions no
longer separate men and women, etc., etc.
The separation was a holdover from the way things were done in the
synagogues of the day. Issues such as this and circumcision were carried
over and had to be shed. And were. My own religion not only does not
separate the men and women, we also don't shunt the kids off. We expect
them to sit with Mom & Dad and to begin learning. And, surprise,
surprise ... that is exactly what happens when kids sit with their
parents. There is a "mothers room" in the womens restroom for
breastfeeding / diaper changing -- but we don't isolate the kids in some
sound proof nursery under a quasi-professional caretaker. Nope ... the
kids, and their behavior, are the responsibility of the parents.
(Not to mention the fact
that I would actually find offendensive any religion that suggested
that God would be ****ed off if he saw me wearing my woolen overcoat
with the fake fur collar.)
As would I ... but the warning not to mix, say cotton and wool in the
same weaving (for instance, to use one in the warp and the other in the
woof) is sound ... they shrink at different rates. Just as we account
for shrinkage differences between woods, so must they be accounted for
in weaving. It's probably also not a good idea for you to toss that wool
coat with the fake fur trim collar in the Maytag, either.
Leviticus included laws for both religious reasons (avoiding idolatry,
intermarriage with unbelievers, provisions for others to convert,
tolerance of those who did not choose to convert) and for practical
purposes ... such as disposal of manure, washing of hands and eating
utensils and so on. Following the laws in Leviticus (expanded upon in
Deuteronomy) enabled the Jews to be healthier and more prosperous than
those nations around them. (Take the manure out of the camp where it
fosters diseases, bury it in the field where it increases fertility.
Win-win.)
Short version? -- the true God was taking care of his people while the
false gods could do no such thing.
With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.
Actually, no, it isn't all that hard. We now have access to far earlier
manuscripts than the earlier translators. That has enabled the tossing
of MANY marginal notations that had worked their way into the body of
the text. (Consider the 8th chapter of John in your own Bible)
We also have access to a lot of secular records (and the ability to read
them) that they did not and we have the findings of relatively modern
science of archeology that all come together to establish which accounts
are / are not reliable.
Moreover ... would any of these so-called objections that I have been
addressing be sufficient cause for turning ones back on God or are they,
instead, good reasons to dig deeper to KNOW what the Bible really
teaches? If I, a decidedly amateur woodworker, am addressing
misconceptions here, on Usenet, how much more insight could be gained by
an orderly study?
Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-1, 07/13/2007
Tested on: 7/14/2007 1:04:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com