"The bible test" Answered.

[Drich]

[max-greece]

Show me one example of someone here who has taken on and challenged more than 3 of my answers. let alone refuted them? How then in your estimation has my 'ass been handed to me' exactly?

You refused to address my post because of the quotes. You were nailed.

[Drich]

Show me one example of someone here who has taken on and challenged more than 3 of my answers. let alone refuted them? How then in your estimation has my 'ass been handed to me' exactly?

You refused to address my post because of the quotes. You were nailed.

I did not even read your post because it reads like something my grandmother would post if she could figure out how to get on line. Maybe present your ideas/arguement within the accepted norms of this forum and I would be happy to read and consider your work. But, again if you are afraid to have it even read by me then just keep barking on your side of the fence. maybe your peers will rally behind you anyway.

[Aractus]

[Drich]

Someone else though that too. A deeper explaination starts on post 17. I will agree my answer does not conform to the typical knee jerk christian response.

You're wrong, Dirch, just like you're wrong about many things. The commandments God give regarding food and clothing, etc, are simply based on His commandments, and His desire that his chosen people are distinguish themselves, but also will follow his commands.

is this a ya-huh, nut-huh thing or do you have proof to support your assertion? (Questions are not proof in what you say, they are proof that you don't know.) that sounds like a fortune cookie saying.

Why can you eat Locusts and not other insects?
The Torah does not say they can not eat other insects it says in the parshat shemini (lev 9:1-11:47)
"Every flying insect that uses four legs for walking shall be avoided by you. The only flying insects with four walking legs you may eat are those with knees extending above their feet, [using these longer legs] to hop on the ground. Among these you may only eat members of the red locust family, the yellow locust family, the spotted gray locust family and the white locust family. All other flying insects with four feet [for walking] must be avoided by you."

Why can't you eat perfectly healthy birds? You have no answer for this.

first the obvious you have absolutely no idea if all birds were healthy back then. Neither did they.

In truth what made an animal 'unclean' was its diet, it's ability to contract and transmit any serious diseases to people, and it's self life. If a bird was considered unclean if you knew the specific species we could look at those three categories and find something if you like.

I can tell you now that the primary reason locus were editable and birds were not was diet. Locus eat plant matter while other bugs are scavengers. They eat the dead amongst other unclean things. Birds on the other hand even the one who aren't scavengers still eat the bugs who are. Scavengers are more susceptible to disease than grazers.

Also, if it really is true that God gave the commands purely for health reasons - then why give the command "you shall not put on a garment made of two kinds of material"

you do understand my argument pertains to dietary law correct? People don't generally eat fabric.

(Lev 19:19)? Is that also meant to have a health benefit - and if so why do we wear blended fabrics all the time today?

for the same reason we eat bacon and do not eat locus. We are not Old Testament Jews we are not bound to the law as a means to righteousness.

You can keep the commands but you cannot be justified by them. This is a running theme through the whole of the New Testament that is repeated by almost every author.

someone should have told paul that because he seems to think differently.
Romans 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual, but I am not. I am so human. Sin rules me as if I were its slave. 15 I don’t understand why I act the way I do. I don’t do the good I want to do, and I do the evil I hate. 16 And if I don’t want to do what I do, that means I agree that the law is good. 17 But I am not really the one doing the evil. It is sin living in me that does it. 18 Yes, I know that nothing good lives in me—I mean nothing good lives in the part of me that is not spiritual. I want to do what is good, but I don’t do it. 19 I don’t do the good that I want to do. I do the evil that I don’t want to do. 20 So if I do what I don’t want to do, then I am not really the one doing it. It is the sin living in me that does it.

21 So I have learned this rule: When I want to do good, evil is there with me. 22 In my mind I am happy with God’s law. 23 But I see another law working in my body. That law makes war against the law that my mind accepts. That other law working in my body is the law of sin, and that law makes me its prisoner. 24 What a miserable person I am! Who will save me from this body that brings me death? 25 I thank God for his salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So in my mind I am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful self I am a slave to the law of sin.

...that said keep in mind paul did write 2/3's of the nt. Not to mention what Christ had to say on the subject. (One had to be more righteous than the Pharisees to enter heaven) in other words more righteous/moral than men who scrutinize every aspect of their lives to ensure their morality..) remember what Jesus called this effort in morality this pursuit of righteousness? Self righteousness. Why? Because as He rightly said only God is Good. Therefore we need a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness/morality that comes with following the law.

[Minimalist]

I did not even read your post because it reads like something my grandmother would post if she could figure out how to get on line.

Drippy, your posts are something like my ass would post if it could figure out how to get on line.

[Aractus]

...that said keep in mind paul did write 2/3's of the nt.

No he didn't. Paul didn't write anywhere near 2/3rds of the text, he didn't even write anywhere near 1/3rd of the text! He wrote 23.5% of the text in 13 epistles. Luke wrote 2 books totalling 27.5% of the New Testament - ergo he wrote more than Paul did.

As I just said to you, you don't know your facts.

[MindForgedManacle]

[Lemonvariable72]

Drippy your op demonstrates aptly why Christianity is a joke.

[max-greece]