100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
And I can't believe how many misinterpret what it is saying....... Also, why didn't God send his only begotten daughter to save the world? Clearly it's as partriachal as it can be. Oh my gosh are you joking.......you are so pathetic it makes me truly want to gag. Why should it make you gag to think that God might send an only begotten daughter? What's wrong with a woman savior? Would you not have any respect for a daughter of God? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I can't believe how many misinterpret what it is saying....... Also, why didn't God send his only begotten daughter to save the world? Clearly it's as partriachal as it can be. Oh my gosh are you joking.......you are so pathetic it makes me truly want to gag. Why should it make you gag to think that God might send an only begotten daughter? What's wrong with a woman savior? Would you not have any respect for a daughter of God? H E L L O didn't happened.......again makes me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
whose coat is white as snow.
So, why does all this gibberish always have such complex answers on religious topics? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo; If you think there have been 3 contradictions stated - then I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have better discernment than that. Abra's "contradiction" is the fallacy of shifting middle. God deals with man the same way - we all die for the sins we commit. What has salvation got to do with that? It certinly doean't prevent it. He's still working on his argument as far as I can see. Krimsa's contradiction is over a lack of exegesis. Not a contradiction at all - but a lack of examination over the term "unclean" Belushi's two points are a bit tougher - but as to the Judas issue - it isn't clear that it is contradictory, more likely it's complimentary. The intended audiences are different, and this brings the matter to a subjective one. I have not done the exegesis on the OT reference - so I'll withhold comment on that one. What are you talking about that my Leviticus is a mere misunderstanding of the word "unclean"? You can't just reinvent language to suit the needs of the bible when its clearly being contradictory. That would be bending the rules by all rational estimates. Look at the passages. They are not describing simply putting a mother into quarantine after birth. They are making the claim that she needs to be "cleansed". I don't think they care one bit about the health of the mother. That is not their concern. They want to make sure that she is thought of as tainted in some way by the process of bringing life into the world. This job is supossed to be done by god and he doesnt like the idea of a woman performing it for him. So he comes up with all this cleansing and atonement to try to level the playing field a bit. A. Atonement payments need to be paid to a priest for this "service". B. The purification rite is double the amount of time if she has given birth to a maid or female child. C. As Abra pointed out, they are also insisting that she not touch anything considered holy until this purification process is complete. Tackle those please. Have you examined every passage that has the word unclean in it to determine what exactly is being refered to by this term? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay, yes of course newborns are brought into sterile environments in modern day hospitals. Actually my mother is a retired labor and delivery RNC so I have some experience with this just based on listening to her talk about work and having little tours of the hospital. You are correct in that, however, this was biblical times so they did not have big sterile nurseries or anywhere similar that they could care for a sick baby or an infirm mother. They had to make do in those situations and primarily relied on the medical assistance of midwives. Or if they did not have that, hopefully an older woman well versed in childbirth to play a crucial role in the delivery and aftercare of the infant. Look at Leviticus carefully and read it. I’m sure you are well versed in most of this anyway. But "unclean" seems to indicate that the birthing rite itself is abhorrent in some fashion. The ability to give birth. Intercourse is not even mentioned. It’s the fact that she is bringing a child into the world that causes this purification ritual as far as I can understand. So yes, you are correct in that it creates a definite scriptural contradiction. It requires it’s followers to "go forth and multiply" and take dominion over the passive Earth BUT make sure you do a lot of cleansing and atonement payments to these priests because its is asked of "god". Also, you still did not answer why if this is for medical concerns for the mother or child, that it would be double the cleansing time period for a maid child (female) and why would turtles, pigeons and lambs need to be paid to priests that were suposidly doing all of this purification? I think if you look at the book of Leviticus and the extended exegesis of "unclean" you will find that most of the instructions concerning the cleansing rituals do not reference or make mention of the actions that caused them as being an atonement for sin. Nowhere is it even suggested that childbirth is a sin - so interpreting "unclean" to mean this is incorrect exegesis. As to paying the priests for performing the rituals - this is a practice that goes on - even today. Be it doctor, nurse, midwife - if you have a child, you're paying somebody. But for the same reason - you are not paying out because of "sin" but of purification, which was a concernment for physical health - not spiritual. Well we are looking at these two contradictory vs. now as they appear in The King James version of the Bible. Clearly they are accusing a woman of being “unclean” and needing to atone for the act of giving birth. I just don’t know how else this could be interpreted. “If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days;” They have described the act that has made her unclean. She has conceived a child. She then bore a child. Now she is to be considered unclean for seven days. There is no mistaking the action. It has been explained. “And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.” Abra caught this so I have to give credit where it is due. This passage alone clearly blows your theory out of the water that it was simply to “provide a sterile environment for the mother and baby.” She has sinned in the eyes of god and her filthy body now requires cleansing. She is to be thought so abhorrent at this point that she is NOT to dare touch anything considered holy. I don’t know what they would define as holy exactly so I’m not going to try to figure it out what she could and could not touch. Clearly there are no medical concerns being expressed here but only harbored resentment and insecurity over this birthing process and the woman’s body. “But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.” This is a personal favorite. If she had a boy, well okay, she’s still a little nasty but we will cut her some slack because she provided us with a male at least. But, if she has another girl creature, yuck, double that ritual atonement! Just in case there were any doubts here about what exactly these peasants were being instructed to do and for whom. There is obviously a new sheriff in town. Bear in mind, these practices would have most likely been very startling and strange to folks. Nonsensical. “And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:” Did you say this had nothing to do with SIN? I’m not sure how else you can explain that away? “And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a SIN offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.” Once again, she has sinned by bringing life into the world. I also disagree with your comparison of these priests to midwives. That is absurd. For one thing, they are offering NOTHING in the way of medical assistance to these women. Remember, they are to be considered “unclean”. A priest wouldn’t touch a woman in labor with a ten foot pole other than to chastise her and offer a lot of contempt. Midwives would have been the only ones around to give much needed medical help to a new mother and assist her through the pain and trauma of childbirth. If there was a problem during labor, these women would also be the only source of help with the delivery and care of the infant immediately following birth. Remember, in these times, many new mothers were teenage girls, frightened and unaware of how to nurse and care for a new baby. The midwives would also lend assistance with these new tasks. Sadly, it was not uncommon to lose mother and/or baby during labor. So no, I can’t agree with you that paying off some greedy priest is ANYTHING even remotely comparable to the services that these midwives provided. They were not asking for some silly spiritual cleansing process and to pay for it with lambs! Yeah, that’s what all brand new mothers need…. Leviticus 11:29 says "Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasal, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon." NIV Okey - explain to me how these animals are "sin". You said "She has sinned in the eyes of God" insinuating that this is what "unclean" means (Else your taking Abra's word for it) Where is this idea that "childbirth is a sin" coming from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judaism at that time had many laws regarding the unclean. Many processes were put into place by which one could become clean. This whole topic was intended to show the Israelites how impossible it is to become clean in God's eyes. One rule prevented anyone who wasn't without blemish from coming before God's altar. Now I'm no doctor, but it seems like it would be impossible to find anyone without a single blemish upon their body. No cuts, scrapes, scars, pimples, moles, freckles, warts, etc. The lesson? Nobody is "clean" enough to stand before God. What do warts have to do with sin? Nothing. The point is that the earthly things aren't "clean" enough to be in God's presence.
The difference between a boy child and a girl child was this: The boy was circumcised. Part of the "uncleanness" (baseness of humanity) was taken away with the boy's foreskin. So the duration of uncleanness for the mother was 1/2 (because the baby boy took half by being circumcised). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leviticus 11:29 says "Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasal, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon." NIV Okey - explain to me how these animals are "sin". You said "She has sinned in the eyes of God" insinuating that this is what "unclean" means (Else your taking Abra's word for it) Where is this idea that "childbirth is a sin" coming from? No one said that it was a 'sin' Eljay. What they said is that it is considered to be 'spiritually unclean'. If you want to extrapolate that to mean 'sin' that's your prerogative, but no one else has suggested that. I think the bottom line is crystal clear. The men who wrote the Bible had a religious phobia about blood, and they had a strong need to associate it with spiritual filth. The whole book is nothing more than unwarranted superstitions and bigotries. People today who claim to believe in the Bible don't even pay any attention to it a all. Christian women are constantly proselytizing the religion today, yet the book demands that they remain silent. Christian men are completely ignoring the book as well. Clearly the people who proselytize this religion are only doing so to support the bigotries that they wish to support whilst suppressing the ones they aren't interested in hearing.
It's the epitome of a designer religion. They twist the words in a book and claim that it speaks for God. All they are really doing is twisting the lips of God making him say whatever strikes their bigoted fancy at the moment. Christians truly are like they Wizard of Oz. They have all become Paper Popes to take turns pulling the levers that run the mouth of their make-believe godhead. The show's over Eljay. The curtain has been pulled back, and the lever-pullers have been revealed for what they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Tue 08/05/08 08:38 AM
|
|
the blood on the original scapegoat sent into the wilderness and not to be touched by man is emblematic of Cain's violence.
That is not to be cleansed from the scapegoat. the blood of a woman's delivery of a child is another thing altogether. Culminating in Christ's spilled blood, untouched, the signiificance is that such a sprinkling on the earth of His blood cleanses the earth in Him, and Him alone, and that it is to Christ one must come for the cleansing of one's soul, seeing that it is His blood left in the earth claiming ownership thereof of all things earthly in dominion. It is the spilling of that blood that is meant to be spilled only once untended. Thus, sin under the blood of Jesus, we are risen with Him. I suspect that complicates things immensely.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that complicates things immensely.
For me it isn't complicated at all. The entire mythology is centered around a superstitious fascination with blood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo; If you think there have been 3 contradictions stated - then I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have better discernment than that. Abra's "contradiction" is the fallacy of shifting middle. God deals with man the same way - we all die for the sins we commit. What has salvation got to do with that? It certinly doean't prevent it. He's still working on his argument as far as I can see. Krimsa's contradiction is over a lack of exegesis. Not a contradiction at all - but a lack of examination over the term "unclean" Belushi's two points are a bit tougher - but as to the Judas issue - it isn't clear that it is contradictory, more likely it's complimentary. The intended audiences are different, and this brings the matter to a subjective one. I have not done the exegesis on the OT reference - so I'll withhold comment on that one. What are you talking about that my Leviticus is a mere misunderstanding of the word "unclean"? You can't just reinvent language to suit the needs of the bible when its clearly being contradictory. That would be bending the rules by all rational estimates. Look at the passages. They are not describing simply putting a mother into quarantine after birth. They are making the claim that she needs to be "cleansed". I don't think they care one bit about the health of the mother. That is not their concern. They want to make sure that she is thought of as tainted in some way by the process of bringing life into the world. This job is supossed to be done by god and he doesnt like the idea of a woman performing it for him. So he comes up with all this cleansing and atonement to try to level the playing field a bit. A. Atonement payments need to be paid to a priest for this "service". B. The purification rite is double the amount of time if she has given birth to a maid or female child. C. As Abra pointed out, they are also insisting that she not touch anything considered holy until this purification process is complete. Tackle those please. Have you examined every passage that has the word unclean in it to determine what exactly is being refered to by this term? of course not....it's their interpretation.....I have asked on so many occasions please put the scripture up......but they think they are excluded from it....can't debate what I don't see......And I am not going to put up every scripture that talks about unclean......and 99% of the time if they read what was before or after then they would get the answer...but that is to hard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Tue 08/05/08 09:59 AM
|
|
Leviticus 11:29 says "Of the animals that move about on the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasal, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon." NIV Okey - explain to me how these animals are "sin". You said "She has sinned in the eyes of God" insinuating that this is what "unclean" means (Else your taking Abra's word for it) Where is this idea that "childbirth is a sin" coming from? No one said that it was a 'sin' Eljay. What they said is that it is considered to be 'spiritually unclean'. If you want to extrapolate that to mean 'sin' that's your prerogative, but no one else has suggested that. What are you talking about. I quoted her. I didn't make it up. People today who claim to believe in the Bible don't even pay any attention to it a all. Abra - stop claiming that you speak for what I do. I believe it, and I pay attention to it. Christian women are constantly proselytizing the religion today, yet the book demands that they remain silent. Christian men are completely ignoring the book as well. Clearly the people who proselytize this religion are only doing so to support the bigotries that they wish to support whilst suppressing the ones they aren't interested in hearing.
It's the epitome of a designer religion. They twist the words in a book and claim that it speaks for God. Here again, you exhibit a lack of comprehension in your reading. I know of no one who twists the words of scripture more than you do - well, maybe Rabbit. Say - speaking of rabbits, where has he been these days? All they are really doing is twisting the lips of God making him say whatever strikes their bigoted fancy at the moment. Someday you'll have to explain to me what it is you think you do - because this describes you to a tee. Christians truly are like they Wizard of Oz. They have all become Paper Popes to take turns pulling the levers that run the mouth of their make-believe godhead. The show's over Eljay. The curtain has been pulled back, and the lever-pullers have been revealed for what they are. Abra - you honestly don't think I'm convinced of this conclusion by your "arguments" - do you? You may be sitting in a theater watching the wizard - but I'm not in there with you. I've seen the movie, apparently, your still watching. Let me know when you catch up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo; If you think there have been 3 contradictions stated - then I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have better discernment than that. Abra's "contradiction" is the fallacy of shifting middle. God deals with man the same way - we all die for the sins we commit. What has salvation got to do with that? It certinly doean't prevent it. He's still working on his argument as far as I can see. Krimsa's contradiction is over a lack of exegesis. Not a contradiction at all - but a lack of examination over the term "unclean" Belushi's two points are a bit tougher - but as to the Judas issue - it isn't clear that it is contradictory, more likely it's complimentary. The intended audiences are different, and this brings the matter to a subjective one. I have not done the exegesis on the OT reference - so I'll withhold comment on that one. What are you talking about that my Leviticus is a mere misunderstanding of the word "unclean"? You can't just reinvent language to suit the needs of the bible when its clearly being contradictory. That would be bending the rules by all rational estimates. Look at the passages. They are not describing simply putting a mother into quarantine after birth. They are making the claim that she needs to be "cleansed". I don't think they care one bit about the health of the mother. That is not their concern. They want to make sure that she is thought of as tainted in some way by the process of bringing life into the world. This job is supossed to be done by god and he doesnt like the idea of a woman performing it for him. So he comes up with all this cleansing and atonement to try to level the playing field a bit. A. Atonement payments need to be paid to a priest for this "service". B. The purification rite is double the amount of time if she has given birth to a maid or female child. C. As Abra pointed out, they are also insisting that she not touch anything considered holy until this purification process is complete. Tackle those please. Have you examined every passage that has the word unclean in it to determine what exactly is being refered to by this term? of course not....it's their interpretation.....I have asked on so many occasions please put the scripture up......but they think they are excluded from it....can't debate what I don't see......And I am not going to put up every scripture that talks about unclean......and 99% of the time if they read what was before or after then they would get the answer...but that is to hard. Deb; The passage being refered to is Lev 12: 1-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there was a boy, a very strange enchanted boy,
they say he wandered very far................. very far........................................ over land and sea......... a little shy, and sad of eye, but - very wise was he. And then one day, one magic day he past my way, and while we spoke of many things ---- fools and kings ----- this he said to me: " The greatest thing............................ you'll ever learn................................ is just to love ------- And be Loved --- in return" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay,
Just for the record, Krimsa had eye surgery today and can't read or post very well. So this is why she is not responding. She just suggested to me that near the end of Leviticus they actaully refer to it as "sin" twice. I haven't been reading it myself. But give her some time to heal and I'm sure she'll get back to you on this. She's having serious problems reading fine print with one eye patched up. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Tue 08/05/08 12:50 PM
|
|
Thanks Abra but the one eye is fine and compensating. I best just not overdo it is all. I can copy and paste a couple things.
"And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:" Sin is there and "And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean." Sin is used there twice. It’s towards the end of the passage. Also, just out of curiosity then, what is she having to atone for if it isn't a sin and presumably the sin of giving birth? Another thing, why is it LONGER if she has given birth to a girl baby? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo; If you think there have been 3 contradictions stated - then I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have better discernment than that. Abra's "contradiction" is the fallacy of shifting middle. God deals with man the same way - we all die for the sins we commit. What has salvation got to do with that? It certinly doean't prevent it. He's still working on his argument as far as I can see. Krimsa's contradiction is over a lack of exegesis. Not a contradiction at all - but a lack of examination over the term "unclean" Belushi's two points are a bit tougher - but as to the Judas issue - it isn't clear that it is contradictory, more likely it's complimentary. The intended audiences are different, and this brings the matter to a subjective one. I have not done the exegesis on the OT reference - so I'll withhold comment on that one. What are you talking about that my Leviticus is a mere misunderstanding of the word "unclean"? You can't just reinvent language to suit the needs of the bible when its clearly being contradictory. That would be bending the rules by all rational estimates. Look at the passages. They are not describing simply putting a mother into quarantine after birth. They are making the claim that she needs to be "cleansed". I don't think they care one bit about the health of the mother. That is not their concern. They want to make sure that she is thought of as tainted in some way by the process of bringing life into the world. This job is supossed to be done by god and he doesnt like the idea of a woman performing it for him. So he comes up with all this cleansing and atonement to try to level the playing field a bit. A. Atonement payments need to be paid to a priest for this "service". B. The purification rite is double the amount of time if she has given birth to a maid or female child. C. As Abra pointed out, they are also insisting that she not touch anything considered holy until this purification process is complete. Tackle those please. Have you examined every passage that has the word unclean in it to determine what exactly is being refered to by this term? of course not....it's their interpretation.....I have asked on so many occasions please put the scripture up......but they think they are excluded from it....can't debate what I don't see......And I am not going to put up every scripture that talks about unclean......and 99% of the time if they read what was before or after then they would get the answer...but that is to hard. Deb; The passage being refered to is Lev 12: 1-8 I found it...it makes for more work....but thats ok getting in the word is always a good thing.....I just wish if they want to debate it to put it there....like the cutieful eljay just did...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feral, its been there posted for days now, scroll up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
First off this has no bearing on whether it's a boy or a girl.......the time is just that the time frame.....In order for the woman to heal. This is the law.....It has nothinng to do with the woman personally....... 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. Remember that during the old testament all sacrafices were done as a way to show God your loyalty. All before Christ was done through the shedding of the blood. This is basically the Lord blessing her after the birth. " 'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' " It doesn't at all mean she is a sinner...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feral, its been there posted for days now, scroll up. I know I saw it.....ty But was it put up by the original poster. |
|
|
|
|
