Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 … 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next

Topic: Throw down
feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 08/09/08 03:32 PM
Feral Wrote: abra Oh please abra.....you know it's true....when I speak truth you guys just conveniently ignore it......how apra-po Ok abra.......Christians preach against homosexuality because in God's eyes it is wrong....If God intended for man to sleep with man and woman with woman....then he would of made adam and steve......and for me I have many homosexual friends......I love thee person....just not the sin....and every single one knows where I stand. And just because homosexuals want to justify it by saying that God loves me no matter what.....it will not change that it is wrong. And Everytime this subject is brought up I list all the PLACES in the bible that are THOUGHT to be discussing homosexuality and I post WHY some scholars beleive these verses have been misread and misunderstood. How the words are taken out of the context of the times they were written in. How 'new' words have been added and it all gets very long and involved. But Deb is oblivious to attempting to see with an open mind what other scholars are saying and instead INSISTS with her usual NO NO NO GOD SAID IT'S WRONG AND IT'S WRONG.... That is the point at which Deb claims she has won the battle. No discussion, no debate, not thought, only her belief that the puck passed the goalie and was trapped by the netting of her quick tongue to respond with her vehement NO NO NO.... Deb, Would you like me to print all the arguments, once again, in this thread? Perhaps if you say yes, I might also print your hearty NO NO NO responses. Perhaps seminary may be a good place for you're mind to expand, or at least a place in which you are not the one who KNOWS everything, all alone. You want proof Here ya go........ Please take note of #351 This is part of the original 613 Commandments of God......now again I say to you redy.......you can slice it and dice it and disect it all you want to fit what "you think" it should be...........IT IS A SIN FOR MAN TO SLEEP WITH MAN OR WOMAN TO SLEEP WITH WOMAN....as to have no dispute I will give all that is not allowed in God's eyes.....and why because he commanded it. Sinful Relationships 330. A man must not have sexual relations with his mother. (Leviticus 18:7) 331. A man must not have sexual relations with his father's wife. (Leviticus 18:8) 332. A man must not have sexual relations with his sister. (Leviticus 18:9) 333. A man must not have sexual relations with his half-sister. (Leviticus 18:11) 334. A man must not have sexual have relations with his son's daughter. (Leviticus 18:10) 335. A man must not have sexual relations with his daughter's daughter. (Leviticus 18:10) 336. A man must not have sexual relations with his daughter. (Leviticus 18:10) 337. A man must not marry a woman and her daughter. (Leviticus 18:17) 338. A man must not marry a woman and her son's daughter. (Leviticus 18:17) 339. A man must not marry a woman and her daughter's daughter. (Leviticus 18:17) 340. A man must not have sexual relations with his father's sister. (Leviticus 18:12) 341. A man must not have sexual relations with his mother's sister. (Leviticus 18:13) 342. A man must not have sexual relations with his father's brother's wife. (Leviticus 18:14) 343. A man must not have sexual relations with his daughter-in-law. (Leviticus 18:15) 344. A man must not have sexual relations with his brother's wife. (Leviticus 18:16) 345. A man must not have sexual relations with one wife in the dwelling of another. (Leviticus 18:18) 346. A man must not approach a menstruous woman for sexual relations or in any way to become ritually unclean by her. (Leviticus 18:19) 347. Do not commit adultery. (Leviticus 18:20) 348. A man must not have sexual relations with an animal. (Leviticus 18:23) 349. A woman must not have sexual relations with an animal. (Leviticus 18:23) 350. A man must not have sexual relations with another man. (Leviticus 18:22) 351. A man must not have sexual relations with a woman betrothed to another man. (Leviticus 19:20) 352. A man must not lust after any woman forbidden to him. (Leviticus 18:16) 353. A man must not have sexual relations with a woman until he has lawfully acquired her in marriage. (Exodus 22:16-17) 354. Do not allow your son or daughter to marry a godworshiper (a worshiper of false gods) who refuses to repent. (Deuteronomy 7:3, 23:2) 355. Do not allow your daughter to play the harlot, allowing her to commit fornication. (Leviticus 19:29) 356. A man must not have sexual relations with a woman who returns to him after having sexual relations with another man. (Deuteronomy 24:4) 357. A childless widow must not marry anybody outside of her husband's family. (Deuteronomy 25:5) 358. A man must not divorce a woman he married after having raped her. (Deuteronomy 22:29) 359. A man must not divorce a woman he married after having slandered her. (Deuteronomy 22:19) 360. A man must not allow himself to be castrated. (Deuteronomy 23:1) 361. A man must not divorce a woman, unless she committed premarital fornication. (Deuteronomy 24:1)

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 08/09/08 03:34 PM
If there was ever a time when God wanted women to be subservient to men and to never speak out in public on important matters of religion and ethics, then why would God have changed his stance on this? Also, if this is what God wants from humans on earth, why would he want anything different in heaven? Are we to believe that God will behave entirely differently in heaven? If that's the case then how can we even know ahead of time what he will be expecting from us in heaven. Why should we be expected to commit to serve the will of a deity for all of eternity when we have no clue ahead of time what will be expected of us? That would be like signing a blank check of morality. What do you do if you disagree with the moral values that God wants to instantiate? Can you be honest with this God without fear of reprisal? Would sharing your honest feelings with God be taboo if your honest feelings differ with his will? Would your honesty be considered rebellion? In the Bible arranged marriages were commonplace. Daughters were sold by men as commodities. The richest men bought the most desirable women. What if you go to heaven Feral and discover that God really is like the Bible says? God places you into the Holy Matrimony servitude of a man that you aren't thrilled with. And God tells you not so speak out against him, and to obey his ever word. What if you genuinely don't like that situation? Do you get to complain? Evidently the women in Biblical times were not permitted to complain. They just did what they were told to do. For this is God's law. SAME CRAP DIFFERENT DAY...ALREADY ANSWERED

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Sat 08/09/08 03:39 PM
Krimsa. In sympathy for your desire to peer into what is meant by a woman's state in childbearing as being 'unclean' I have looked into it for whatever I might find that may make sense in some form of comfort to you concrning that, as it is read in English in Leviticus 12:2. This word is used elsewhere, only sparsely, as in connection to the Lord speaking through the prophets to the people of Isra-el and more often than not which ius rarely used anyway, connected to spiritual idolatry and the repugnancy to the Lord of sacrificing children as written of in Ezekiel. But in these cases, this word for unclean is called 'pollute(d)'. That aside..... in childbearing, there is a context given for this uncleanness as described in Leviticus 12. It is this ; "according to the days of the separation for her infirmity..." twice, for a male and a female child being birthed, vs 2 and 5, her 'separation' is emphatic to this ritual. The 'separation' means quite literally, to reject. in the sense of the root of that word which means to push away. This time is also called one of infirmity for a woman in childbearing. Now, conveniently enough, this word for infirmity is not the 'infirmity' as read in English of any other use of this word in the OT laws and ordinances. It is used here in Leviticus 12 only once and no where else in the whole of scri[pture as 'infirmity'. It also is not a spiritual or emotional infirmity as depicted in the NT either. It is a root word which means, "to be sick" and paranthetically, menstruation. Infirmity. It may very well be that the Lord doesn't get it through the thick skuylls of men that women are severly stressed in childbirth and have a need to be given a minimum of slack from the demands and duties that women typically endure caring for others. I will leave it to mothers to tell of how very stressful childbearing is. LOL I see care here. I do not see that women are being ridculed by the writings of men. I do sense that men are not sensitive enough to realize just how violent and harmful childbearing can be to a woman's body. And, as well, her emotions while in such distress. I have witnessed childbirth. Not for me LOL Well, I hope that answers your inquiry better than worse, in so far as uncleanness of women in childbearing is concerned. Thank you for your politeness. It is appreciated as not all of the Christians have been as I’m sure you have witnessed. Go ahead and post Leviticus 12 in its entirety so we can have a look. Here is 1-8 only. Maybe there is more to it. Feel free to post. Also, as you can see there, it’s not simply the word "unclean" that is cause for alarm, it’s the entire passage. Im sure you are also aware that there are an abundance of passages similar in tone to Leviticus, only worse. Leviticus 12:1-8 King James Version Leviticus 12 "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 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. 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. 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: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 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."

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 08/09/08 03:39 PM
Feral Wrote: abra Oh please abra.....you know it's true....when I speak truth you guys just conveniently ignore it......how apra-po Ok abra.......Christians preach against homosexuality because in God's eyes it is wrong....If God intended for man to sleep with man and woman with woman....then he would of made adam and steve......and for me I have many homosexual friends......I love thee person....just not the sin....and every single one knows where I stand. And just because homosexuals want to justify it by saying that God loves me no matter what.....it will not change that it is wrong. And Everytime this subject is brought up I list all the PLACES in the bible that are THOUGHT to be discussing homosexuality and I post WHY some scholars beleive these verses have been misread and misunderstood. How the words are taken out of the context of the times they were written in. How 'new' words have been added and it all gets very long and involved. But Deb is oblivious to attempting to see with an open mind what other scholars are saying and instead INSISTS with her usual NO NO NO GOD SAID IT'S WRONG AND IT'S WRONG.... That is the point at which Deb claims she has won the battle. No discussion, no debate, not thought, only her belief that the puck passed the goalie and was trapped by the netting of her quick tongue to respond with her vehement NO NO NO.... Deb, Would you like me to print all the arguments, once again, in this thread? Perhaps if you say yes, I might also print your hearty NO NO NO responses. Perhaps seminary may be a good place for you're mind to expand, or at least a place in which you are not the one who KNOWS everything, all alone. every single thing you guys have come up with I have proved you wrong......you just want to argue......go ahead argue....from now on I will just say ANSWERED...If you ask me no matter how many ways you put it...the answer will be the same..........so from now on insteaad of wanting to do this I WILL JUST PUT ANSWERED

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 08/09/08 03:40 PM
Krimsa. In sympathy for your desire to peer into what is meant by a woman's state in childbearing as being 'unclean' I have looked into it for whatever I might find that may make sense in some form of comfort to you concrning that, as it is read in English in Leviticus 12:2. This word is used elsewhere, only sparsely, as in connection to the Lord speaking through the prophets to the people of Isra-el and more often than not which ius rarely used anyway, connected to spiritual idolatry and the repugnancy to the Lord of sacrificing children as written of in Ezekiel. But in these cases, this word for unclean is called 'pollute(d)'. That aside..... in childbearing, there is a context given for this uncleanness as described in Leviticus 12. It is this ; "according to the days of the separation for her infirmity..." twice, for a male and a female child being birthed, vs 2 and 5, her 'separation' is emphatic to this ritual. The 'separation' means quite literally, to reject. in the sense of the root of that word which means to push away. This time is also called one of infirmity for a woman in childbearing. Now, conveniently enough, this word for infirmity is not the 'infirmity' as read in English of any other use of this word in the OT laws and ordinances. It is used here in Leviticus 12 only once and no where else in the whole of scri[pture as 'infirmity'. It also is not a spiritual or emotional infirmity as depicted in the NT either. It is a root word which means, "to be sick" and paranthetically, menstruation. Infirmity. It may very well be that the Lord doesn't get it through the thick skuylls of men that women are severly stressed in childbirth and have a need to be given a minimum of slack from the demands and duties that women typically endure caring for others. I will leave it to mothers to tell of how very stressful childbearing is. LOL I see care here. I do not see that women are being ridculed by the writings of men. I do sense that men are not sensitive enough to realize just how violent and harmful childbearing can be to a woman's body. And, as well, her emotions while in such distress. I have witnessed childbirth. Not for me LOL Well, I hope that answers your inquiry better than worse, in so far as uncleanness of women in childbearing is concerned. Thank you for your politeness. It is appreciated as not all of the Christians have been as I’m sure you have witnessed. Go ahead and post Leviticus 12 in its entirety so we can have a look. Here is 1-8 only. Maybe there is more to it. Feel free to post. Also, as you can see there, it’s not simply the word "unclean" that is cause for alarm, it’s the entire passage. Im sure you are also aware that there are an abundance of passages similar in tone to Leviticus, only worse. Leviticus 12:1-8 King James Version Leviticus 12 "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 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. 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. 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: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 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." ANSWERED

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Sat 08/09/08 03:46 PM Edited by Krimsa on Sat 08/09/08 03:49 PM
What is answered? Her cleansing period is still double for a female infant; she still can not touch holy objects until she pays a priest for atonement. Not to mention that she is to be considered "unclean" due to the act of child birth. Why else would she even require a priest to "ritually cleanse" her? I shudder to think what this "cleaning" entailed exactly at the hands of these thugs. Why don’t you explain it to us Deb? This one won’t magically leave you alone as much as you would like it to go. Take a crack at it.

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Sat 08/09/08 03:52 PM
I never doubted homosexuality was considered a "sin" in view of the bible and god. I just personally feel that is wrong, cruel and mean spirited. I disagree. It’s just another one of his oppressive laws unfortunately.

Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Sat 08/09/08 03:59 PM
What's with all the Bible quotes about sexaul behavior? If a person wanted to be bothered they could find just as many quotes about why women aren't supposed to speak publically on matters of religion and ethics. Feral breaks the biblical laws with ever post she makes.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 08/09/08 04:02 PM
First of all it is news to me that there is a list of 613 Commandments of God. I thought there were only ten commandments. What possessed people to believe that God needed more commandments,and who wrote them? 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: I was told that after the sacrifice of Jesus no more sacrifices were ever needed. So if this is all old law why would any of it be considered in the new Church of Jesus? And why do some people think they can't live their lives unless they have someone telling what they should or should not do? Geeeeze, I feel so sorry for you. JB

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Sat 08/09/08 04:04 PM Edited by Krimsa on Sat 08/09/08 04:05 PM
It is a cause for concern that so darn much of the bible is exhaustive admonitions and threats about sexual behavior. They don’t really approve of the idea of women having sex and then giving birth though there is no way around it so they just ask that she pay up and atone for all of this. They also don’t like men getting with men nor ladies being with ladies either. What harm would that possibly cause? Why is god so concerned about keeping tabs on what people are doing in their bedrooms or tents (whatever they lived in back then.) It’s ridiculous. My guess was that bi-sexuality had been the norm up until the advent of Christianity so god just decided man with woman and that’s that.

wouldee Joined Sun 10/07/07 Posts: 5335	Sat 08/09/08 04:07 PM
Krimsa. In sympathy for your desire to peer into what is meant by a woman's state in childbearing as being 'unclean' I have looked into it for whatever I might find that may make sense in some form of comfort to you concrning that, as it is read in English in Leviticus 12:2. This word is used elsewhere, only sparsely, as in connection to the Lord speaking through the prophets to the people of Isra-el and more often than not which ius rarely used anyway, connected to spiritual idolatry and the repugnancy to the Lord of sacrificing children as written of in Ezekiel. But in these cases, this word for unclean is called 'pollute(d)'. That aside..... in childbearing, there is a context given for this uncleanness as described in Leviticus 12. It is this ; "according to the days of the separation for her infirmity..." twice, for a male and a female child being birthed, vs 2 and 5, her 'separation' is emphatic to this ritual. The 'separation' means quite literally, to reject. in the sense of the root of that word which means to push away. This time is also called one of infirmity for a woman in childbearing. Now, conveniently enough, this word for infirmity is not the 'infirmity' as read in English of any other use of this word in the OT laws and ordinances. It is used here in Leviticus 12 only once and no where else in the whole of scri[pture as 'infirmity'. It also is not a spiritual or emotional infirmity as depicted in the NT either. It is a root word which means, "to be sick" and paranthetically, menstruation. Infirmity. It may very well be that the Lord doesn't get it through the thick skuylls of men that women are severly stressed in childbirth and have a need to be given a minimum of slack from the demands and duties that women typically endure caring for others. I will leave it to mothers to tell of how very stressful childbearing is. LOL I see care here. I do not see that women are being ridculed by the writings of men. I do sense that men are not sensitive enough to realize just how violent and harmful childbearing can be to a woman's body. And, as well, her emotions while in such distress. I have witnessed childbirth. Not for me LOL Well, I hope that answers your inquiry better than worse, in so far as uncleanness of women in childbearing is concerned. Thank you for your politeness. It is appreciated as not all of the Christians have been as I’m sure you have witnessed. Go ahead and post Leviticus 12 in its entirety so we can have a look. Here is 1-8 only. Maybe there is more to it. Feel free to post. Also, as you can see there, it’s not simply the word "unclean" that is cause for alarm, it’s the entire passage. Im sure you are also aware that there are an abundance of passages similar in tone to Leviticus, only worse. Leviticus 12:1-8 King James Version Leviticus 12 "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 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. 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. 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: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 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." Krimsa. OK. I see a word here that may be the magic bullet. Atonement. perhaps that is smacking of sin to you, I don't know. That word mans covering. same word used to describe a walled city, in Hebrew. That word, as read in English as atonement in the NT is 'an exchange'. Romans 5:11. Arguably, among CHristian scholars, this is or is not correctly associated with the word for atonement in the OT, and specifically, in Leviticus. So, let's not even go there LOL But as for this and other passages in Leviticus concerning the atonement for sins, or the covering of errors, there is the presentation of these atonements in emblem to the priest, with the offering. In this case, I would say that since there is nota doctor in the house, the priest is that authority figure acceptably ordained to receive gifts to God and acknowledge likewise faithfulness to the law and its requirements . Think of it like how the barber pole of the old west said that the dentist was in . LOL The barber and the dentist were one and the same. The priest and the doctor, then, as one and the same. That doesn't sound so grievous, does it? I am not making light of anything, but I am also not one to make heavy things out of light things either. If anything, I am one to make everything lighter than it is. LOL The LORD, JHWH, of the OT was also called, Jehovah Rapha, the Lord that heals. CVhristian thought and discourse also sees Him as the Great Physician. I see more congruence in this view than without. Hopefully., something uneasy is eased. OK bye.

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Sat 08/09/08 04:12 PM Edited by Krimsa on Sat 08/09/08 04:15 PM
"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: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. 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." Or it could be that it is referred to as sin twice. Also, if this was all for her medical health, why can she not touch holy objects and why must payment be extorted from these poor people to pay priests for these cleansing rituals immediately following the birth of a child? I’m sure you are aware that Leviticus is light? You sound like you are well read so you know they get progressively more disturbing in their distaste and fear of women and birth?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 08/09/08 04:14 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 08/09/08 04:16 PM
A childless widow must not marry anybody outside of her husband's family. (Deuteronomy 25:5) Lets talk about the above so-called commandment. What do you think it means and what do you think the reason for it is? A woman marries a man, he gets killed, and then she is only allowed to marry the man's brother or father or first cousin or whatever? Are you kidding? Do you actually go along with this sort of genetic management? This is either about genetics or it is about men owning women like cattle. So her husband dies and she is passed on to anyone in his family who wants her and forbidden to marry anyone else? This is an example of laws you abide by? JB

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 08/09/08 04:15 PM
What is answered? Her cleansing period is still double for a female infant; she still can not touch holy objects until she pays a priest for atonement. Not to mention that she is to be considered "unclean" due to the act of child birth. Why else would she even require a priest to "ritually cleanse" her? I shudder to think what this "cleaning" entailed exactly at the hands of these thugs. Why don’t you explain it to us Deb? This one won’t magically leave you alone as much as you would like it to go. Take a crack at it. ANSWERED

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 08/09/08 04:16 PM
I never doubted homosexuality was considered a "sin" in view of the bible and god. I just personally feel that is wrong, cruel and mean spirited. I disagree. It’s just another one of his oppressive laws unfortunately. LOVE THE SINNER NOT THE SIN

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 08/09/08 04:16 PM
What's with all the Bible quotes about sexaul behavior? If a person wanted to be bothered they could find just as many quotes about why women aren't supposed to speak publically on matters of religion and ethics. Feral breaks the biblical laws with ever post she makes. REDY ASKED I ANSWERED

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Sat 08/09/08 04:17 PM
What is answered? No, it's not her period Deb. The priest isn’t referring to her needing a bath as "unclean". Try again.

Krimsa Joined Fri 04/25/08 Posts: 9960	Sat 08/09/08 04:19 PM
"Are you kidding? Do you actually go along with this sort of genetic management? This is either about genetics or it is about men owning women like cattle." hahah, JB, that was kind of cool. Genetic Managment. Im gonna have to remember that one next time Im pissed off at someone.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 08/09/08 04:20 PM
A man must not have sexual relations with his brother's wife. (Leviticus 18:16) ..unless his brother dies, then he can marry her.

feralcatlady Joined Mon 10/08/07 Posts: 35491	Sat 08/09/08 04:22 PM
I answer JB because she has good questions..giggle First of all it is news to me that there is a list of 613 Commandments of God. I thought there were only ten commandments. What possessed people to believe that God needed more commandments,and who wrote them? FERAL: Thos 613 are the original Laws of God......GOD wrote them......see what I mean....study study study 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: FERAL: ANSWERED I was told that after the sacrifice of Jesus no more sacrifices were ever needed. So if this is all old law why would any of it be considered in the new Church of Jesus? And why do some people think they can't live their lives unless they have someone telling what they should or should not do? Geeeeze, I feel so sorry for you. FERAL: This is true....but just like with the old law....Jesus came to fulfill the law not to take it away....This includes the 613 original laws.... I live my life very well tyvm.....And JB do you think that I don't sin............hmmmmmm I do sweets...the only difference is I know right when I do it. Does this mean I live in a bubble and don't have fun....cmon JB you know this is not true......