Morality

[Moral Orel]

Show me abortion in Numbers 5:11-31.

Not there.

He's probably talking about the rotten thigh part. A lot of speculation about what that means. So here's one that's more clear:

Hosea 9:16

You can still be anti-choice with that one though.

 

[redleghunter]

He's probably talking about the rotten thigh part. A lot of speculation about what that means. So here's one that's more clear:

Hosea 9:16

You can still be anti-choice with that one though.

A prophecy ending the rule of Ephraim in the northern kingdom.

 

[rjs330]

Rape can be nonviolent. And you completely ignored the issue of slavery. Am I to assume that you see nothing wrong with slavery, or did you just miss that part of my post?

Rape in violence against the women. Rape is non consentual sex. Thats violence whether you see it or not. Ask the woman who was raped. But even if it is not violent according to your standards it is still wrong according to scripture. So far I have answered your questions as to why the law does not apply to Christians and how we do not cherry pick. Do you have anything else to discuss about that subject? Hopefully now you accept that we do not cherry pick based upon random ideas but based upon things rooted in scripture. If not please specify and ask specific questions about cherry picking. As I have shown you, we follow what is written in the New Covenant and sometimes those things do overlap with the Old, but not all of them.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Rape in violence against the women. Rape is non consentual sex. Thats violence whether you see it or not. Ask the woman who was raped.

I take it you don't follow college sports. There is such a thing as copulation with an unconscious person. That is rape. It is also nonviolent. That's just one example you have not considered.

But even if it is not violent according to your standards it is still wrong according to scripture.

Assertion of the point in question.

Suppose a man wants sex from his wife, but she has the dreaded "headache." He waits until she falls into her deep sleep, and then he has gentle sex with her so as to not wake her. Please explain to me how this is ethical or else show me where the Bible condemns this.

So far I have answered your questions as to why the law does not apply to Christians and how we do not cherry pick. Do you have anything else to discuss about that subject?

You haven't actually answered a single thing. Also I've pretty much lost all hope of you discussing slavery. I was looking forward to seeing some Olympic-quality gymnastics.

Hopefully now you accept that we do not cherry pick based upon random ideas but based upon things rooted in scripture.

What a bizarre thing to say. You haven't quoted any scripture. You haven't even paraphrased scripture. In fact you haven't even vaguely alluded to any identifiable idea in the Bible at all in this post.

If not please specify and ask specific questions about cherry picking.

Cherry picking? Well, homosexuality is described in the same way as shellfish: an abomination. Why do you cherry pick homosexuality laws and not dietary laws? Is it because Paul says that everything is clean and yet he also abhors homosexuality? If this is all because of Paul, then I assume your stance on slavery is that you are in favor of it. That would explain your reluctance to discuss the topic.

As I have shown you, we follow what is written in the New Covenant and sometimes those things do overlap with the Old, but not all of them.

Slaves, obey your masters.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Is it because Paul says that everything is clean and yet he also abhors homosexuality?

Hmmmmm.....something about that it is not what goes into a mans mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out of his mouth because it is from the heart.......But I would not expect a non-believer to understand something like that......

 

[Moral Orel]

Hmmmmm.....something about that it is not what goes into a mans mouth that makes him unclean but what comes out of his mouth because it is from the heart.......But I would not expect a non-believer to understand something like that......

That's one of my favorite Bible contradictions too! Notice how Jesus doesn't say, "I've made all food clean now" or "God has made all food clean now". He talks to the folks as if they were stupid for not realizing that no food you eat can defile you, yet He says that not one jot of the OT Law should go unfollowed...

 

[civilwarbuff]

That's one of my favorite Bible contradictions too! Notice how Jesus doesn't say, "I've made all food clean now" or "God has made all food clean now". He talks to the folks as if they were stupid for not realizing that no food you eat can defile you, yet He says that not one jot of the OT Law should go unfollowed...

You do realize they were still under OT law at that point?...so no contradiction.

 

[Moral Orel]

You do realize they were still under OT law at that point?...so no contradiction.

No, that's the point. Jesus contradicted the OT Law. Here's what the Law says:
...to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten. Leviticus 11:47

That whole chapter goes into detail of what is "unclean" and "detestable".

But Jesus says:
There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him. Mark 7:15

And you used this as proof that Jesus told us we can eat shellfish and it wasn't just Paul.

So Jesus says we can eat what we want, the OT says things should be detestable to us.

There is no mention in the Bible I've ever seen that says animals became dirty and then they became clean again since everything was free game before Leviticus. Jesus was just saying that the OT Law was wrong and his audience should have realized that. "Don't you see?"

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, that's the point. Jesus contradicted the OT Law. Here's what the Law says:
...to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten. Leviticus 11:47

That whole chapter goes into detail of what is "unclean" and "detestable".

But Jesus says:
There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him. Mark 7:15

And you used this as proof that Jesus told us we can eat shellfish and it wasn't just Paul.

So Jesus says we can eat what we want, the OT says things should be detestable to us.

There is no mention in the Bible I've ever seen that says animals became dirty and then they became clean again since everything was free game before Leviticus. Jesus was just saying that the OT Law was wrong and his audience should have realized that. "Don't you see?"

He was speaking in a spritual sense; you did not bother to finish out the chapter:
Mark 7
18 He asked them, “Are you so ignorant? Don’t you know that nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean?
19 Because it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods.”
20 Then he continued, “It’s what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean,
21 because it’s from within, from the human heart, that evil thoughts come, as well as sexual immorality, stealing, murder,
22 adultery, greed, wickedness, cheating, shameless lust, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness.
23 All these things come from inside and make a person unclean.”

 

[Moral Orel]

He was speaking in a spritual sense; you did not bother to finish out the chapter:
Mark 7
18 He asked them, “Are you so ignorant? Don’t you know that nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean?
19 Because it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods.”
20 Then he continued, “It’s what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean,
21 because it’s from within, from the human heart, that evil thoughts come, as well as sexual immorality, stealing, murder,
22 adultery, greed, wickedness, cheating, shameless lust, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness.
23 All these things come from inside and make a person unclean.”

But we aren't talking about the evil deeds that actually defile you. Those things never changed. We're talking about the food that used to be clean, then it was dirty, then it turned out to be clean all along.

And it wasn't all spiritual. Again, the spiritual part of what defiles never changed. The mundane, non-spiritual part of what goes in did change. You used it to show that Jesus talked about food (not spiritual matters) in the first place.

 

[civilwarbuff]

But we aren't talking about the evil deeds that actually defile you. Those things never changed. We're talking about the food that used to be clean, then it was dirty, then it turned out to be clean all along.

And it wasn't all spiritual. Again, the spiritual part of what defiles never changed. The mundane, non-spiritual part of what goes in did change. You used it to show that Jesus talked about food (not spiritual matters) in the first place.

I am sorry you don't understand it; it is very straight forward.....maybe 1 Corinthians 2:14 comes into play here...

 

[Moral Orel]

I am sorry you don't understand it; it is very straight forward.....maybe 1 Corinthians 2:14 comes into play here...

So you didn't use that reference to show that Paul wasn't the only one to say we can eat what we want? What did you use that reference to do then?

 

[civilwarbuff]

You focused on the physical sense of the verse I was referencing the spiritural meaning. Even his disciples did not understand it; Jesus asked if they were ignorant. They also focused on the physical not the spiritual meaning and He had to explain it to them.

So you didn't use that reference to show that Paul wasn't the only one to say we can eat what we want? What did you use that reference to do then?

Peter had a vision in Acts 10 that precedes Paul's statement about dietary laws.......I don't recall Paul having a similar experience so I would assume it came from Peter's vision.

 

[Moral Orel]

You focused on the physical sense of the verse I was referencing the spiritural meaning. Even his disciples did not understand it; Jesus asked if they were ignorant. They also focused on the physical not the spiritual meaning and He had to explain it to them.

I focused on the pertinent part. We were talking about whether we can eat what we want. Genesis says yes. Then Leviticus says no. Then Jesus says yes, sort of. He says both, that it won't defile us, but that we're not supposed to eat what we want (because that would ignore that jot). Were the animals ever unclean? Were we ever really not supposed to eat them? Why shouldn't we have eaten them in the second place (since it was okay in the first place)? His apostles were "ignorant" for not realizing it on their own.

Just because He tacked on a spiritual message to it doesn't mean there wasn't a completely mundane physical part to begin with. It all started because Jesus and the gang were literally, physically eating with unwashed hands. He was excusing literal, physical actions.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Genesis says yes.

Where does it say that?
A general rule of thumb (maybe you have already heard it)
The “Golden Rule of Interpretation”
Posted on March 30, 2014
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
p style=”text-align: right;” – Dr. David L. Cooper, founder of
a href=”http://www.biblicalresearch.info” target=”_blank”The Biblical Research Society/a/p
This has often been shortened to “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”
http://www.bibletruths.org/the-golden-rule-of-interpretation/
So if you see a "contradiction" in scripture there is a deeper spiritual truth that is there.....unfortunately if one is a non-believer without the Holy Spirit that truth can be difficult/impossible to understand even if explained.

 

[Moral Orel]

Where does it say that?

Genesis 9:3-4

A general rule of thumb (maybe you have already heard it)
The “Golden Rule of Interpretation”
Posted on March 30, 2014
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”
p style=”text-align: right;” – Dr. David L. Cooper, founder of
a href=”http://www.biblicalresearch.info” target=”_blank”The Biblical Research Society/a/p
This has often been shortened to “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.”
http://www.bibletruths.org/the-golden-rule-of-interpretation/
So if you see a "contradiction" in scripture there is a deeper spiritual truth that is there.....unfortunately if one is a non-believer without the Holy Spirit that truth can be difficult/impossible to understand even if explained.

I'm not even going to open that can of worms & confirmation bias.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Ge 9 has nothing to do or say about OT Law. You do understand the purpose of OT Law, right?

I'm not even going to open that can of worms & confirmation bias.

So your mind is made up and closed.....then why are you here?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

He's probably talking about the rotten thigh part. A lot of speculation about what that means. So here's one that's more clear:

Hosea 9:16

You can still be anti-choice with that one though.

Numbers 5:28 says,

If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

This implies that adulterous women will be made barren.

Adulterous women sometimes become impregnated with a bastard child.

In a scenario where the accused woman is both guilty and pregnant, a potion-induced abortion is occurring. I don't think it means to say that God will allow her to give birth to a bastard child and that after the birth the woman will be made barren. The potion is harming her womb to the point that it cannot bear children, so any child in the womb would die.

 

[rjs330]

I take it you don't follow college sports. There is such a thing as copulation with an unconscious person. That is rape. It is also nonviolent. That's just one example you have not considered.



Assertion of the point in question.

Suppose a man wants sex from his wife, but she has the dreaded "headache." He waits until she falls into her deep sleep, and then he has gentle sex with her so as to not wake her. Please explain to me how this is ethical or else show me where the Bible condemns this.



You haven't actually answered a single thing. Also I've pretty much lost all hope of you discussing slavery. I was looking forward to seeing some Olympic-quality gymnastics.



What a bizarre thing to say. You haven't quoted any scripture. You haven't even paraphrased scripture. In fact you haven't even vaguely alluded to any identifiable idea in the Bible at all in this post.



Cherry picking? Well, homosexuality is described in the same way as shellfish: an abomination. Why do you cherry pick homosexuality laws and not dietary laws? Is it because Paul says that everything is clean and yet he also abhors homosexuality? If this is all because of Paul, then I assume your stance on slavery is that you are in favor of it. That would explain your reluctance to discuss the topic.



Slaves, obey your masters.

1. That is still violence against the woman. Physical,penetration of a foreign object into a person's body without consent is violence against that person. If you cant, see that then I guess we are at an impasse on that point.

2. See point 1 above.

As for husbands, love your wives just like Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. He did this to make her holy by washing her in a bath of water with the word. He did this to present himself with a splendid church, one without any sort of stain or wrinkle on her clothes, but rather one that is holy and blameless. That’s how husbands ought to love their wives—in the same way as they do their own bodies. Anyone who loves his wife loves himself. No one ever hates his own body, but feeds it and takes care of it just like Christ does for the church because we are parts of his body. This is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two of them will be one body .
Ephesians 5:25‭-‬31 CEB
http://bible.com/37/eph.5.25-31.CEB

3. If you want to suggest that We believe slavery is great then start a different thread claiming so.

4. I have given you scriptures. I gave you scriptures to support why we are not under the law didn't I?

http://www.christianforums.com/index.php?posts/70223581

5.As shown above since we are not under the law therefore dietary restrictions are removed. However As you pointed there are still sins and sinful practices that we are to avoid as a believer.

Don’t you know that people who are unjust won’t inherit God’s kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse, thieves, the greedy, drunks, abusive people, and swindlers won’t inherit God’s kingdom. That is what some of you used to be! But you were washed clean, you were made holy to God, and you were made right with God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9‭-‬11 CEB
http://bible.com/37/1co.6.9-11.CEB

 

[civilwarbuff]

If you cant, see that then I guess we are at an impasse on that point.

Actually, it is just willful ignorance on his part......

I have given you scriptures. I gave you scriptures to support why we are not under the law didn't I?

And he will continue to deny and ignore everything you post.....