Eating shrimp and prawns is forbidden by God!

Post Reply New Topic

I kinda read your post after I post... Sorry. I did use your post in the Homosexuality arguement on NP, giving you full credit, of course. The thread My post on this is on page five.

Are you seriously contesting this?! This is not something that you can contest! You will just end up looking foolish if you try to. There are many, many examples of lunacy and immorality in the NT.

Here are some lists (this is not complete, there is more):

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/nt.html

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/nt.html


Prejudice against homosexuals in the NT:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/nt.html

OT or NT, either way, it is an obscene book that encourages clearly unethical behavior.

Anyone can post links. I want you to read the bible then argue with me. There is plenty of good stuff in there, with what you consider bad.

You also, mis-read my post. You are believing me to be as hostile toward you as you are towards me. I was not contesting the idea, I was trying to make this a formal arguement, one in which both side attemps to prove themselves with external sources. This is the first time you have done more than yell at us, and added something substantal to your arguement.
I will, against my better judgement, contest some points. Alot of the one from the 'violence section are a bit messed up. But there are two I need to argue:
Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
Jesus wasn't being literal here! It is a way to say if something causes you to sin, don't do it.
If you are merciless to others, God will be merciless to you. (Two wrongs make a right.) 2:13
That does not say two wrongs make a right. This is more of a different stating of teh golden rule than that.
I note that most of these are things Jesus said, not something done, at that very few of these tell us to go out and do something bad.
"Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19
Another literal reading. It is saying that it will be very bad in those days.
I choose to end here. Perhaps someone else will pick it up for me. But know that I am just argueing a bit of logic from the religious side. I beg that before you say anything, you open your mind, and learn about the other side. You may be surpised at what you find.

If more people viewed the bible like this, there would be a lot less stupid arguments!!

But that would take all the fun out it these wonderful discussions:twisted:

Like your links have you seen this one http://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

Don't know if this has been mentioned - apologies if it has, but I don't have time to read all of the posts already here.

Right, the Mosiac Law (Mosaic because given through Moses) was part of the Old Covenant. That Covenant was fulfilled when Jesus died, and so began the New Covenant. So there's that point.

There's a difference between laws and principles. The laws are the commandments, but the principles behind the laws remain, even after the law is no longer in force. In terms of the Scriptures, anyway.

So, 'picking and choosing' actually shouldn't be happening. We should go with any laws under the New Covenant, whilst making our decisions based on unchanging principles that occur throughout the Scriptures. So the principles behind the Mosaic Law haven't changed (because Jehovah doesn't change) even though the Law was fulfilled.

Of course some aspects of it (eg going to the toilet outside the city wall and burying it) were simply for health and safety (sensible H&S, of course; none of this OTT modern 'H&S'.) But lots of the Law was based on principles that still apply today, if you choose to live by the Scruptures.

Do I make sense?

I do understand what you are trying to say but I'm not in complete agreement with it.
The apostle Paul was the "apostle to the Gentiles" and presented a new dispensation. He asserted that "old things are passed away, Behold are things have become new". He also indicated in the book of Romans that God had turned from the Jews for now and that He has opened the door of salvation directly to the Gentiles. The Jew and Gentile are no longer separated by rules of the law and Christ had "abolished the law" having "nailed it to His cross" and made an end of it. That is, the Old Testament Law pertaining to rituals, foods, drinks and Holy Days, not moral concepts, has been done away with. There is something new in it's place called the "mystery". This was a huge difference!
Since we are under the new Dispensation of "the Grace of God", we should not pick and choose from the Old Testament, but rather, we should follow what God has told us in His revelation to the apostle Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles (that's us) for the, the "Body of Christ", not the Old Testament, Jewish church; not even the so-called "New Testament" Messiahnic Jewish church.
It's akin to a military regiment obeying another regiment's commands instead of their own orders.
However, I don't believe that Emp is sincerely interested in this, he is merely trying to antagonize Christians because he has a chip on his shoulder about God.

Very cogently presented. I applaud your ability to organize information and persent it so well. Stellar!

Yeah; I agree.

Thank you. I have studied this particular topic for quite some time.

The problem with this post is that it is a philosophical construct. Nothing said here can be proven or disproven. What is the piont of studying statements that have no means of external verification?? These arguments can go around and around in circles without any progress made. There's much that the bible says that stands on it's own. why not talk about those things??

I was just pointing out that the Bible is more consistent than you think if you understand what is being said to whom and when and why. That's all.

That depends on which theologian you talk to. That was my point.

Stop asking theologians and look into it yourself.