DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 I hope you aren't "unclean". God might not like that Leviticus 15:19-20New International Version (NIV)19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. 20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Well, this was way before tampons/Kotex, etc. I'm sure it was pretty nasty in them days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 Slavery is cool tho, right? Leviticus 25:44-46New Living Translation (NLT)44 “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. 45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way. Answering Leviticus 25: 44-46 – The Bible Condones Slavery?https://answeringsceptics.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/answering-leviticus-25-44-46-the-bible-condones-slavery/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 The passage in the bible that allows slavery is actually ok because there's another passage that says it is wrong. Interesting... How about this. Are little people not going to heaven? Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 Real, Traditional Marriage Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 But I am influenced by the devil.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 The passage in the bible that allows slavery is actually ok because there's another passage that says it is wrong. Interesting... How about this. Are little people not going to heaven? Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV I can tell you are a big fan of Leviticus: Leviticus 21:16-23: Is God Really Compassionate? In an age of discrimination lawsuits, many would rather not worship a God who would only allow the descendants of one family of one nation to be priests, and only priests without physical defect to actually offer priestly service. Is this the same God who says "whatever you did for the least of these, my brothers, you did for me"? Is it the same God who says that pure and undefiled religion is to visit widows and orphans in their distress? Yes, it is. But why would He do this, and why is it right for Him to? As we ask this, let's remember that He is God. He does not answer to the Supreme Court, me, or the ACLU any more than He answers to the Ku Klux Klan, The Taliban, or the Nazi Party. It is we who need to reform ourselves and get in line with reality, not Him. This is crucial to remember each time we have a question like this one. We should wrestle with it, yet we should do so in faith that He is good no matter what we may think of Him. The answer starts when we consider the priests' role in Israel. They essentially represented the people to God and God to the people. For instance, when all of them came before God on the Day of Atonement, only the High Priest actually went into His presence. But when he went before God, all of his sin had to be atoned (paid for) for by the blood of a bull and a ram, or he would die. If there was any sin or evidence of sin put before God's very eyes, God's holiness would swallow up whoever stood before Him. The important thing to remember about physical defections like those listed in this passage is that they only happen to people who are born fallen, and in world that is fallen. Had our father Adam not sinned before us, no one would have a blemish, a mutilated face, blind eyes, or an itching disease. Those problems are not just inconvenient and painful, they are physical markers that we are a sinful people who are not worthy of approaching Him. It's true that those with handicaps or physical blemishes are not worthy of approaching God, but that's because none of us are! The better question is this: why did God allow priests without physical blemishes to approach Him if they were just as sinful? And, as you asked, aren't we all imperfect somewhere? Come to think of it, the priest did have to wear very elaborate priestly garments that included a headdress. Add a fierce beard, and you wouldn't have been able to see much of him at all. Most of his defects would have been covered- except for those listed in Exodus 21:16-24. Reading through them, all of them would have either shown through the garment or been revealed by the priest's behavior or voice. It would be clear that they weren't sinless people- and only sinless people can come before God. If their imperfection showed, the offering would not have been accepted. So the whole point of this was to teach Israel the very thing you and I want to reject: that only perfect people can come into God's presence and make an offering. Would that make them notice what you noticed, that all of us are imperfect? I hope so. Will a perfect priest ever come to make an offering for us? God was preparing them, showing them how deeply they needed that perfect priest. This has two huge implications for us: First, it makes us, like them, long for a perfect priest to represent us. Jesus has come, perfect as He was, and offered a sacrifice that the Father accepts. Colossians 1 says that he did so in order to present us holy and blameless and without reproach to Himself. Now we can indeed go into God's presence, healthy and handicapped together. But second, how can we live forever in God's presence in the New Kingdom with all these imperfections? Only perfect people can do that, right? Let that be one more reminder that He's going to fix them. Of those disqualified Levites, the ones with faith will be with us one day: holy and blameless and above reproach- and also perfected. And they will enter God's presence because a perfect priest eventually did come along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 Real, Traditional Marriage Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days." Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins." Rightly dividing scriptures: The Old Testament and Rapehttp://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 You didn't answer the question. Are little people allowed in heaven? You didn't read the article I posted that answered the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 " But when he went before God, all of his sin had to be atoned (paid for) for by the blood of a bull and a ram, or he would die." You believe this? That an animal sacrifice was necessary so that god wouldn't kill a priest? Why does god require animal sacrifices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 Rightly dividing scriptures: The Old Testament and Rapehttp://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm Yes, right, there are countless ways to interpret a book that has been edited and translated countless times. Almost like you can make it say anything, tho I am sure only your interpretation of it is right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 I take it you also don't eat pork, right? And I don't think you ever got back to me on the mixed material clothes thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 " But when he went before God, all of his sin had to be atoned (paid for) for by the blood of a bull and a ram, or he would die." You believe this? That an animal sacrifice was necessary so that god wouldn't kill a priest? Why does god require animal sacrifices? A good article that answers your question: Why did God Require Animals to be Sacrificed?https://keltonburgpreacher.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/why-did-god-require-animals-to-be-sacrificed/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 I take it you also don't eat pork, right? And I don't think you ever got back to me on the mixed material clothes thing I am not under the law of the old covenant but a covenant of grace. The only time I would not eat pork would be if someone would be offended if I did and then I wouldn't eat pork to not offend. The same would be about the mixed clothing. I am not living under the law but under grace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 A good article that answers your question: Why did God Require Animals to be Sacrificed? https://keltonburgpreacher.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/why-did-god-require-animals-to-be-sacrificed/ I guess I should realize Christians have had generations on generations to explain away the shit in Bible that seems crazy today. Pretty soon they'll be explaining away the verses you perceive as being against homosexuality. Just as you explain away the ones about slavery and rape today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 You'll never have the woodpecker agree with you on religion or homo's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 4, 2017 Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 you can bet no liberal will ever say "...the s**( in the Koran".... the ridicule is unnecessary. OBF is just answering here... libs have accrued the power to be belligerently intolerant... and on the attack. thanks obaMao. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.