The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 85 of 85

Thread: & in TEXAS

  1. #81
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I've been down the road of detailed biblical discussions before and don't plan on doing it again. It's not worth the pain given that I fundamentally view the Bible in the same way that I view other religious texts. I will simply assume that you live your life in a manner consistent with a literal reading of Leviticus since I don't remember any part of the New Testament, or even any Supreme Court decisions that rewrote those original rules.
    I live my life in a manner consistent with a literal reading of the Bible (to the best of my extremely limited ability). To which specific text in Leviticus are you referring? Since the Law was given to the Israelites through Moses, and since Jesus fulfilled some parts of it, and since I am not an Israelite, except by adoption, I obey the old testament as it applies. For instance I don't sacrifice goats for my sins, I don't obey the Jewish dietary laws, I don't stone adulteresses (although I have seen some stoned adulteresses that got my attention, but that is another topic for another day), I do pay pretty close attention to the Ten Commandments. So to which Levitical mandate were you irrelevantly referring?

    I find it quite amusing that when it finally comes down to road meet rubber, people start throwing out the ballast. Old testament law is pretty desperate. What's next? The crusades? The inquisition? I know Salem witch trials!
    Last edited by Leddyman; 03-18-2010 at 10:33 AM.
    Terry Moseley
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  2. #82
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leddyman View Post
    I live my life in a manner consistent with a literal reading of the Bible (to the best of my extremely limited ability). To which specific text in Leviticus are you referring? Since the Law was given to the Israelites through Moses, and since Jesus fulfilled some parts of it, and since I am not an Israelite, except by adoption, I obey the old testament as it applies. For instance I don't sacrifice goats for my sins, I don't obey the Jewish dietary laws, I don't stone adulteresses (although I have seen some stoned adulteresses that got my attention, but that is another topic for another day), I do pay pretty close attention to the Ten Commandments. So to which Levitical mandate were you irrelevantly referring?

    I find it quite amusing that when it finally comes down to road meet rubber, people start throwing out the ballast. Old testament law is pretty desperate. What's next? The crusades? The inquisition? I know Salem witch trials!
    I actually have no issues with the Bible. I accept the wisdom of its moral teachings, but view it no differently than other religious and philosophical texts other than the fact that its importance is defined by the sheer number of people who consider it to be important and sacred. I am not the one who said "The Bible can only mean what it meant. You understand that right? When it was written it meant something. That meaning never changes..... I try my best to live my life according to what God says and what He meant when He said it." Given that, I have difficulty understanding why any part of the Bible would be considered more or less important than another. I asked about Leviticus because few Christians consider it to be applicable -- particularly with respect to things like sanitary laws which arguably had their foundation in historical conditions more than religious need. However, the laws are purportedly those of God and, in your words, "never change". I would say that Jesus might be considered to have proposed an "amendment" in suggesting that he without sin be the first to cast a stone. However, I didn't see the amendment that made pork and shell fish okay to eat. Leviticus is routinely used to justify discrimination against homosexuality, but seldom followed by the same people with regard to sexual abstinence and ritual cleansing related to menstruation. You make the distinction that these laws only apply to Israelites (Jesus being one). If the word of God is unchanging, I fail to see the basis for your distinction.

  3. #83
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leddyman View Post
    ...The Bible says that man was created by God from the dust of the earth. That does not leave the Catholic Church or any other church room for evolution. Unless they forsake the Bible in favor of Science Fiction.

    If life is an accident there is no God.
    Is it possible that the dust of the earth is a reference to or the same as the primordial sea?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_sea
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  4. #84
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I actually have no issues with the Bible. I accept the wisdom of its moral teachings, but view it no differently than other religious and philosophical texts
    See, now we are getting somewhere. You don't believe it, and thus it is irrelevant to you other than as a religious artifact. I say you don't believe it because it makes claim to be the inspired Word of God. So if you view it to be the same as any other writing then you don't believe it. I further realize that there are other writings (Koran) Which claim the same thing. So it comes down to faith. I started this whole discussion with a couple other people who said they were Christian, but who support and claim justification for wealth redistribution on the basis of a misinterpretation of the Bible. They are supporting people that in the view of the Bible are killing unborn children. All while claiming to believe the book. You make no such claim so all I can say to you is I hope we maintain enough of a majority to outvote you.
    other than the fact that its importance is defined by the sheer number of people who consider it to be important and sacred.
    I believe its importance is defined by its being the Word of God. So we differ there.
    I am not the one who said "The Bible can only mean what it meant. You understand that right? When it was written it meant something. That meaning never changes..... I try my best to live my life according to what God says and what He meant when He said it." Given that, I have difficulty understanding why any part of the Bible would be considered more or less important than another. I asked about Leviticus because few Christians consider it to be applicable -- particularly with respect to things like sanitary laws which arguably had their foundation in historical conditions more than religious need. However, the laws are purportedly those of God and, in your words, "never change".
    Right. They never change, if I was a Jew in the old testament those, laws would apply to me. If you picked up a letter, written to me, promising me something, and you went and tried to claim it you would be wrong. Some of the scripture is that way. It was written to particular groups of people at specific times and it only applies to us as it informs our understanding of what God did through Jesus. For instance the sacrificial system as it points to the sacrifice of Christ. It does not apply to us, but it does help us to see where God was going with respect to the cross. The new testament explains that the law was given so that men would know that they could not produce their own righteousness and knowing that they would be more inclined to accept righteousness in Christ. So I don't go back and try to recreate a righteousness from the old testament which was never good enough in the first place. God never intended that.
    Heb 7: 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for kthe law made nothing 5perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.


    I would say that Jesus might be considered to have proposed an "amendment" in suggesting that he without sin be the first to cast a stone. However, I didn't see the amendment that made pork and shell fish okay to eat. Leviticus is routinely used to justify discrimination against homosexuality, but seldom followed by the same people with regard to sexual abstinence and ritual cleansing related to menstruation. You make the distinction that these laws only apply to Israelites (Jesus being one).
    Some of the laws don't apply. I would say the ten commandments are still in force.
    If the word of God is unchanging, I fail to see the basis for your distinction.
    O.K. see if this works for you.

    For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

    In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
    The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Heb 8:13


    That is a quote from the prophet Jeremiah in the Old Testament. Even then God was trying to tell them this was coming.

    “Behold, the wdays are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that xI took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, 
    The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Je 31:31-32
    Last edited by Leddyman; 03-18-2010 at 01:43 PM.
    Terry Moseley
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Leddyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cochran, georgia
    Posts
    2,530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    Is it possible that the dust of the earth is a reference to or the same as the primordial sea?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_sea
    I really don't think so. Spontaneous generation of life has been proven to mathematically impossible.

    http://www.reasons.org/origin-life/p...-road-part-1-2

    The word “formed” (yāṣar) is used of a potter’s activity and the making of wooden images.

    Dust [ʿāpār] from the ground” is the raw material from which the physical properties of the man and beast had their source. The term may refer to the loose surface dirt of the ground (Exod 8:16–17 [12–13]) or the powder of something pulverized (Deut 9:21)


    “Dust” as constitutive of human existence anticipates 3:19, where the penalty for the man’s sin is his return to “dust”


    Mathews, K. A.: Genesis 1-11:26. electronic ed. Nashville : Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1995 (Logos Library System; The New American Commentary 1A), S. 195
    Terry Moseley
    Bad Motor Scooter SH

    He that tooteth not his own horn...The same shall not be tooted.

    There could be 5 or 6 ninjas in this room right now.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •