A change in thinking

[petejones45 0]

Quote

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

Changes my views for sure, I love eating crab!

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

Changes my views for sure, I love eating crab!

And yet one more of the uninformed that has not heard thatt there is a new testement.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jclalor 12]

Quote

And yet one more of the uninformed that has not heard thatt there is a new testement.

And yet one more who loves to dine at the buffet table of biblical scripture; I'll take a little of this... not so much of that... I'll take all of of this.

Did Jesus not say that he has not come to abolish
the law but fulfill it? (Matthew 5:17-20)

When it comes to bashing Gays and all the capital punishment crap Christians always turn to the OT.

I guess this also means the ten commandments are out.

How do you handle the women that will not cover their head in church? Do you shave them as is prescribed by Paul? It is in the NT after all.

1 Thessalonians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The silly stuff is just not reserved for the OT.

[turtlespeed 212]

I wasn't aware that petejones45 had an alternate screen name,

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[petejones45 0]

Watch it, that is a PA

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[petejones45 0]

Quote

Quote

And yet one more of the uninformed that has not heard thatt there is a new testement.

And yet one more who loves to dine at the buffet table of biblical scripture; I'll take a little of this... not so much of that... I'll take all of of this.

Did Jesus not say that he has not come to abolish
the law but fulfill it? (Matthew 5:17-20)

When it comes to bashing Gays and all the capital punishment crap Christians always turn to the OT.

I guess this also means the ten commandments are out.

How do you handle the women that will not cover their head in church? Do you shave them as is prescribed by Paul? It is in the NT after all.

1 Thessalonians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

The silly stuff is just not reserved for the OT.

Placing more books on top of the old testament by your logic makes everything ok...



In reality, packaging them together should be a logical fallacy.

Thats the problem, people pick and choose what things to follow and in reality thats against the bibles teachings

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[metalslug 31]

Quote

Quote

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

This "law" is likely to have evolved from the allergic reactions that some people may have had to the iodine content in most shellfish, which could not be adequately explained by medical science in that time.

[SpeedRacer 1]

In the New Testament they throw out the dietary rules. There's a long discussion of it in the letters of paul.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

This "law" is likely to have evolved from the allergic reactions that some people may have had to the iodine content in most shellfish, which could not be adequately explained by medical science in that time.

I think the OT dietary laws had to do mainly with perceived cleanliness of the animals, both land and water. Pigs forage in all sorts of shit, alive or dead, fresh or fetid; whereas cows and sheep are strict vegetarians. As so aquatic animals, most fish with fins and scales eat either plankton or other live (and thus not decaying) fish; whereas shellfish, bu contrast, are often bottom-scavengers of decaying animal and plant material.

[airtwardo 6]

Thats the problem, people pick and choose what things to follow and in reality thats against the bibles teachings

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Placing more books on top of the old testament by your logic makes everything ok...



In reality, packaging them together should be a logical fallacy.

Thats the problem, people pick and choose what things to follow and in reality thats against the bibles teachings

I assume you are still sacrificing animals as is commanded in the Old Testament, since you know, you don't get to pick and choose.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

Changes my views for sure, I love eating crab!

And yet one more of the uninformed that has not heard thatt there is a new testement.

"New Testament?" Not a chance.

The Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) has been used as the basis for a variety of alleged "new adventures" addenda - to include the Christian Scriptures, the Koran and the Book of Mormon. It is flattering that the history of our big, dysfunctional family has been used to authenticate so many unrelated works, but they are, in fact, unrelated.

The use of supposed translations of Tanakh as "Part I" of other works is in violation of copyright. The terms "old" and "new" are only used by those who seek to validate the "new" by reference to the "old." Nice try.


BSBD,

Winsor

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The use of supposed translations of Tanakh as "Part I" of other works is in violation of copyright.

Aside from it being in the public domain , I think of that more akin to "Monty Python's History of the World - Part 1"

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

The use of supposed translations of Tanakh as "Part I" of other works is in violation of copyright.

Aside from it being in the public domain , I think of that more akin to "Monty Python's History of the World - Part 1"

That would be Mel Brooks. As one of the family, his take has merit.

[Andy9o8 0]

oopsie. damn; timing's everything.

[petejones45 0]

That was mel brooks

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!

[Andy9o8 0]

Nope; according to Winsor in post #14, it was Mel Brooks. But thanks for the attention.

[skyrider 0]

The whole Idea of "New testament" cracks me the fuck up!

So people got together and rewrote the bible, like a child saying, "Well, what God meant to say is...."!

[petejones45 0]

Quote

The whole Idea of "New testament" cracks me the fuck up!

So people got together and rewrote the bible, like a child saying, "Well, what God meant to say is...."!

haha Darn tootin!

Look out for the freefly team, Smelly Peppers. Once we get a couple years more experience we will be a force to be reckoned with in the near future! BLUES!