Are OT laws barbaric?

[Cabal]

More reliable literature says that circumcision leads to increased sexual pleasure in intercourse.

I reject your description of it. It's not mutilation.

Again, we're not talking of mutilating anyone or anything. It's really an enhancement. A simple procedure that provides much benefit. The family should not be denied the right to choose it for their child. I'm very thankful that my parents chose it for me.

What the actual heck...

So something that is more often than not done TO CHILDREN is about enhancing their genitals for sexual pleasure?

And this is God-inspired, despite the fact that he apparently made us with foreskins in the first place?

I had to have mine done for serious medical reasons (and not at birth), this whip-it-off-because-teh-lawd-sez-so attitude is just asinine beyond belief.

 

[rockaction]

Insulin is a polypeptide (protein) hormone (steroid messenger) secreted by Langerhans islets in the pancreas,
and functions in the regulation of the metabolism of carbohydrates and fats, especially
the conversion of glucose to glycogen, which lowers the blood glucose level.

Yes, this is the fundamental function of insulin.

You do not need to sing to the choir here, I am versed sufficiently in these matters.

We'll see about that.

Not so fast.

Funny thing: Folks who (from their Insulin-resistance) allow him/herself to heal
meaning Again, allow their own Insulin-production & output to proceed...
as necessary for Optimal-health, enjoy decidedly-Different outcomes...

Type I diabetes has a completely different cause than Type II diabetes. Type II diabetes is where insulin resistance plays a role, NOT Type I diabetes!

Type I diabetes is the complete and utter lack of insulin secretion due to the autoimmune destruction of the Islets in the pancreas. You have NO insulin in Type I diabetes. It has nothing to do with insulin resistance. Type I diabetics have functioning sensitivity to insulin, because if you inject them with insulin, the insulin behaves normally. The problem is the deficiency of insulin.

Let's see:
1. Currently, you only aware of accessing a very Limited-model,
would tell -
2. Individuals, already having *self-healed*, that
they can not "grasp your simpleton-reality"?? HALLO
why would they?
When in all reality, (while you still teeter-totter) , the Healed are living light-years... beyond... get Real.

Type I diabetes can't re-grow their pancreatic islets. Type II diabetes can "self-heal" by losing weight, but Type I diabetes NEED insulin.

Anti-medicine? - as Personal-insults, is all you've got?

Reminds one of this: It is the hard things that define character.
Some people turn up their sleeves, some turn up their noses, some don't turn up at all.

iow, what irritates... the Really-Intelligent is
they recognize what ALL they stand to gain; and
the Intelligent leave no stones unturned for New-awarenesses...
too they ask Polite questions
(while you only insult, empty...). Anyway, the Really-Intelligent will search, &
seek until they find... what it is they are looking for. And
the really-Intelligent also make the Best-healers... Cheers!

such that pathetic irritation - you might want to CHANGE...

You made a dumb comment about how we should never put foreign substances in people, and I showed you a case where people would die without a foreign substance. Type I diabetics cannot make insulin. Type I diabetics need insulin to survive. Thus, if we want Type I diabetics to survive, we should give them insulin. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

[rockaction]

In other words, you, who do not even know the difference between the Old and New Covenants, want to lecture us on what our own religion teeaches.

No, I do, but I'm not convinced of the evidence. Not all Christians agree on this, by the way. There is no "set" doctrine. Way back in the day when Christianity diverged from Judaism, there was a lot of debate over this, especially as the canon was being formed. It's not as clear-cut as you think. Just because you trained under Old/New Covenant people doesn't mean the matter is settled.

The answer is still the same "no" as it was the last dozen times you asked me this.

Sorry, I went through the thread looking for a post where you quoted and replied to me, and found nothing. I had assumed you didn't see the question.

So then, you don't believe that the Bible teaches that there is an Old and New Covenant?

I don't think it's explicit enough. Christianity was born out of many differing movements with different interpretations of the teachings of Christ. Some thought he was all man, some thought he was all spirit, some quibbled over the trinity, and some wanted Christianity to be completely separate from Judaism while others didn't. The formation of the canon was a messy process. And theological discourse is still messy. Not all denominations agree with your thoughts on dispensationalism, and even in the ones that do argue about the details.

 

[rockaction]

No you listen up. What are you talking about. You said diabetics didn't need to check their BS levels and didn't need their medication. You made a pretty absolute statement there using diabetics as an example. I'm just asking how this is possible and for you please to provide the studies that demonstrate that this is true in the case of diabetics. Maybe even just a mechanism behind how this is possible?

Why are you now trying to avoid the issue?

She doesn't know the difference between Type I and Type II diabetes

 

[AMarx]

Some thought he was all man, some thought he was all spirit, some quibbled over the trinity, and some wanted Christianity to be completely separate from Judaism while others didn't.

I wish they had decided to be completely separate.

 

[Umaro]

I had to have mine done for serious medical reasons (and not at birth), this whip-it-off-because-teh-lawd-sez-so attitude is just asinine beyond belief.

Not to be too personal or anything, but was there a notable difference between the before and after?

 

[Cabal]

Not to be too personal or anything, but was there a notable difference between the before and after?

It wasn't at birth, but I wasn't exactly at the age where I was engaging in the kind of behaviour to be able to answer your question

There was some change in sensitivity in that it REALLY CHUFFING HURT until the stitches healed up, but I don't think that's quite the same thing

 

[Merlin]

not at all.
not if you have any morals

 

[Cabal]

not at all.
not if you have any morals

So how many people have you had put to death for their sins recently?

 

[silence_dogood]

No, I do

Based on what you've said in this thread, I don't believe you do.

but I'm not convinced of the evidence.

Honestly? I don't really care if you're convinced that our religion is true or not. I'm just curious as to why you think you have the authority to lecture us on what it teaches when you've shown that you don't even know the basics.

Not all Christians agree on this, by the way. There is no "set" doctrine. Way back in the day when Christianity diverged from Judaism, there was a lot of debate over this, especially as the canon was being formed. It's not as clear-cut as you think. Just because you trained under Old/New Covenant people doesn't mean the matter is settled.

Actually, there is a set doctrine. The fact that you believe there isn't just goes to show that you don't know enough about our religion for us to take you seriously.

Sorry, I went through the thread looking for a post where you quoted and replied to me, and found nothing. I had assumed you didn't see the question.

Yeah, I replied to you several times.

I don't think it's explicit enough. Christianity was born out of many differing movements with different interpretations of the teachings of Christ.

So you claim. Notice the lack of any evidence presented.

Some thought he was all man, some thought he was all spirit, some quibbled over the trinity

And they were dismissed as heretics.

Not all denominations agree with your thoughts on dispensationalism, and even in the ones that do argue about the details.

Please name one Christian denomination that does not believe in the Biblical teaching of the fulfilled Old Covenant and the current New Covenant.

 

[Merlin]

And where does the Bible say that Christians are no longer obliged to follow the law?

Laws to follow Acts 15:

In the early church, discussion of which laws to follow came up

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and
said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some
time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message
of the gospel and believe.
8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them,
just as he did to us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that
neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
11 No!
We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

The consensus was:

Acts 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond
the following requirements:
Acts 15:29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of
strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

 

[Merlin]

Who found out you can heal Diabetes?

teaching someone to stop diabetesing is fairly easy

 

[oldbetang]

Circumcision is NOT a slam-dunk "enhancement". A lot of the current research says that the pros and cons equal out, meaning it's up in the air. The pros are mostly pros for people who are sexually active, anyway. Circumcised people have a slightly reduced risk for a couple STDs, and that's about it. The trade-off is the potential sexual desensitization.

So if you're pro-abstinence, it's a no-brainer to not circumcise. You'll only be having sex with your wife, and it'll be awesome!

From what I've read, circumcision is pretty much a slam dunk enhancement. And included in that would be greater sexual satisfaction as an adult, not less as you suggest.

 

[AMarx]

teaching someone to stop diabetesing is fairly easy

Can you teach people to stop having epilepsy?

 

[Merlin]

You can't just rewrite the definitions of words and tell me that an abortion can never be therapeutic. That is the same as saying there is no such thing as a pregnancy in which the woman and foetus will die if it is allowed to continue. Unless you have some evidence to back up that claim I suggest you abandon it.

adjective


▸
helping to treat or cure illness
an abortion can never be therapeutic.

 

[Cabal]

teaching someone to stop diabetesing is fairly easy

Why do I get the feeling this will be equally as poorly-evidenced as skatie's usual guff....

Funny how all these touchy-feely CAM types can never get their oh-so-easy cures to stick.

 

[rockaction]

Based on what you've said in this thread, I don't believe you do.

How judgmental of you!

Honestly? I don't really care if you're convinced that our religion is true or not. I'm just curious as to why you think you have the authority to lecture us on what it teaches when you've shown that you don't even know the basics.

When I said I am not convinced of the evidence, I didn't mean for Christianity. I meant for dispensationalism. I don't think the Bible is clear enough on the issue, and I think it's a concept that is mostly developed outside of the Bible. That's not a bad thing - the Bible is definitely open for interpretation and contemplation. But you speak of it like it's some inherent truth.

I look forward to seeing your evidence for these bizzare claims.

New Testament canonization was a highly political process. This wikipedia article alone has a headache-inducing list of councils, synods, and decrees.

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hate copy/pasting links, but that article gives you the rough idea: canonization was a messy process, and people disagreed a LOT on what should be put in and what should be put out.

Yeah, I replied to you several times.

Then I apologize for pressing the matter further.

Again, what is your evidence for this?

Ha, do you seriously think that the moment Jesus died, Protestant theology suddenly poofed into existence?

And that's why they were dismissed as heretics.

Ever heard of the Council of Constantinople? All that happened there was that Constantine (the Roman Emperor) pulled rank and exiled opponents. It was political, and Constantine, not even theologians, made the call.

Please name one Christian denomination that does not believe in the Biblical teaching of the fulfilled Old Covenant and the current New Covenant.

Messianic Jews. But you also have people with varying interpretations of what "Old" and "New" Covenant means...dispensationalists, supersessionsists, etc.

 

[Merlin]

Again I ask you how a diabetic can live without the proper medication (in this case insulin) and without constant BS level checks.

teaching someone to stop diabetesing is fairly easy

 

[oldbetang]

Why do you deny the right of the child to choose?

Parents make all kinds of choices for their children. We choose to have them vaccinated. We choose what they eat. We choose to instill our own values in them. We often expose them to realities that others may find disgusting ,abusive, and immoral. Like farm life for example. Things that will stay with them forever. Why would you deny parents the right to have a useless, even detrimental, piece of skin removed from their child?

 

[Paulos23]

teaching someone to stop diabetesing is fairly easy

Just because you have stopped testing for it doesn't means it goes away.