[GOD=life]

Re: Morbidity

I'm not after a debate. I'm after an honest discussion, ...

Please explain the difference. If we consult the dictionary meaning for "debate", we get this:

debate

n 1: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on" [syn: {argument}, {argumentation}]

...

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Morbidity

Still no answer?

You're picture is too distracting. No one reads the text besides it. Well except me it seems.

[Jobie4life]

Re: Morbidity

I apologize for my last post. I hadn't noticed we'd moved to a second page and there hadn' t been a reply after mine there. That was an honest mistake. (BTW, please quit changing my Avatar and deleting my Sig)

If what you have said is now abolished, that still leaves the matter of blended fibers. that doesn't fall under jewish holidays, dietary laws, etc. So what's the difference?

And okay....if you wish, I'll admit to wanting a debate. Either way, I'm in search of knowledge and this discussion seems to be the most engaging medium for that. And despite what several of you seem to think, I was raised Christian from day one. However, I also feel that I was given a soul so that I would not become a zombie. I'm not going to accept what is put before me just because it is put before me. Because the same people who used to say that we should stone anyone who even breathed wrong were the same ones who claimed that the world was flat, and at the center of the universe.

This is me trying to understand why one man is okay while violating leviticus, yet a woman is supposed to be stoned because she got raped.

[WWJDnow]

Re: Morbidity

Okay....so I happened upon this site earlier by chance. Maybe some of you would suggest divine intervention. Who knows? I have lived with Baptists before and have a bit of an idea of how that particular culture seems to think. Yet still I feel it necessary to ask, how can you be comfortable handing over your free will to a book written eons ago? And I can even let that one go. The Tao de chiang was also written a long time ago And it's influenced me as well. But seriously....the violence and hatred and bigotry that you all seem to promote is abhorrent. My first encounter with this site was a thread about a young woman who was raped. Almost everyone in the thread that went on for 107 pages was aimed at getting the rapist off free and damning the young girl who was victimized, humiliated, and destroyed emotionally. I know this because I too was raped several times when I was but a child. And ya know what? That doesn't make me a twisted evil little whorish harlot. It makes me an emotionally damaged individual that was thrown out by both church and family for my "impurity". When the "good book" declared that I was evil, I sought proof. I've read no such proof of my demonic influence due to my being too weak to defend myself against stronger antagonists. I think that if you guys opened your eyes and looked at everything you'd see that no matter what, the violence that you propose upon all the "unrighteous" still violates a lot of the ten commandments. "Thou shalt not kill" for starters. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Your god isn't the lord in heaven. Your god is those pages that you haven't even got the brains to understand. You aren't Christians. You're bible thumpers. A true Christian tries to emulate Christ. Christ preached the word to the sinners that needed it. He didn't set a cross on fire and hang a black man. No...he told what he had to say to those who would listen. It is not our place to judge. The lord is the judge. We are merely guides. We are to show the path, not force the path upon anyone. A wise man told me that.

tl;dr

I'd be happy to address your thoughts if you'd like to organize them and present them one or two at a time.

This is me trying to understand why one man is okay while violating leviticus, yet a woman is supposed to be stoned because she got raped.

What exactly is violation of Leviticus to which you're referring?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Morbidity

The Old Testament

Many FALSE Christians assume that Jesus invalidated The Old Testament so that three-quarters of The Bible can only be used for toilet paper. Not so at Landover.

The Christian way is to distinguish between ceremonial laws vs. moral law. Ceremonial laws were invalidated by Jesus and moral laws are eternal. The TRUE Christian™ approach is much - well - truer. We follow the entire Bible with very few exceptions:

• We're not required to make sacrifices because Jesus has given one sacrifice once for all (Hebr. chap. 9+10)
• We don't follow the food laws (Mark 7:15-19, Acts 10:12-16, Rom. 14:1-3) although some members still regard lobster with suspicion
• We don't observe OT (=Jewish) holidays (Gal. 4:9-11)
• The day of rest is Sunday (Acts 20:7, 1st Cor. 16:2)

The rest of The Old Testament was written by an eternal God who does not change and never repents.

Matt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I seek an understanding. Either A) What parts of leviticus are relevent is up for subjective analysis, All of leviticus is true and we are all gonna end up in hell for loving bacon, or C) None of leviticus is relevent anymore. I'm not after a debate. I'm after an honest discussion, an honest explaination of why one verse is relevent and another is not.

There must be something in your brain that doesn't work. Can you not read what Brother HB has written and you quoted; Christ freed us from the dietary laws:

M't:15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
M't:15:18: But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

and later

Acts 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

[Jobie4life]

Re: Morbidity

I don't see how any of this answers my question. I'm not trying to be an unsaved pain in the hind end here.....but none of that seemed to say or even imply that the blended fibers thing has been abolished by your logic.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Morbidity

Who said they had? No one here wears such vile itchy stuff.

[Jobie4life]

Re: Morbidity

So what you're saying is that by wearing clothes of blended fibers is still a sin? Or that it's okay?