Tweet
I have a difficulty.
The other day I was visiting a member of the congregation at his house when I saw the bootlaces pictured below.
Using my powers as a Pastor, I seized them as "possible abominations" under
Le:19:19: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
and
De:22:11: Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
The member (hereafter referred to as "the abomination") was asked for some reasonable explanation, and claimed that
My feeling is that a fair trail should be held and a conviction must be secured for the sake of public policy and to prevent further breaches of God's law on "technicalities." This will allow the eviction of the abomination and his family from Landover "as an example."
To counter his arguments:
(i) The limitation on "Israelites only" does not apply in the same way that Jesus said
M't:15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And we all know Jesus meant "everyone".
(ii) The "wool/cotton" question has been decided in "Landover v. Robertson (1792)" in which it was decided that "wool and linen" are simply examples as shown by
De:22:11: Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
in which "as of" means "such as" or "for example."
(iii) Shoe laces are indeed "worn" and do "come upon" in the same way that "costly array" in
1Tm:2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
This abomination's defense can be dismissed mainly because we can't have this sort of thing in Landover, but I would appreciate any agreement or other reasons why a conviction is certain before we proceed to trial and conviction.
The other day I was visiting a member of the congregation at his house when I saw the bootlaces pictured below.
Using my powers as a Pastor, I seized them as "possible abominations" under
Le:19:19: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
and
De:22:11: Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
The member (hereafter referred to as "the abomination") was asked for some reasonable explanation, and claimed that
(i) the verses in question applied only to Israelites and as he had the usual "Landover Certificate of Confirmation of Non-Semitic Origins" the law did not apply, and
(ii) There is no evidence to show that the laces are "wool and linen"
(ii) shoelaces are not "worn" and do not "come upon him" but "used".
The abomination (and all his family) is currently shunned from Landover.(ii) There is no evidence to show that the laces are "wool and linen"
(ii) shoelaces are not "worn" and do not "come upon him" but "used".
My feeling is that a fair trail should be held and a conviction must be secured for the sake of public policy and to prevent further breaches of God's law on "technicalities." This will allow the eviction of the abomination and his family from Landover "as an example."
To counter his arguments:
(i) The limitation on "Israelites only" does not apply in the same way that Jesus said
M't:15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And we all know Jesus meant "everyone".
(ii) The "wool/cotton" question has been decided in "Landover v. Robertson (1792)" in which it was decided that "wool and linen" are simply examples as shown by
De:22:11: Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
in which "as of" means "such as" or "for example."
(iii) Shoe laces are indeed "worn" and do "come upon" in the same way that "costly array" in
1Tm:2:9: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
This abomination's defense can be dismissed mainly because we can't have this sort of thing in Landover, but I would appreciate any agreement or other reasons why a conviction is certain before we proceed to trial and conviction.
.gif "Gunsmilie(1)")
Comment