24 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no you are in error for assigning values to our faith when in fact, you know next to nothing about it, its termed prejudice I think and to then to add insult to injury, you compare us to nominal Christianity who are responsible for killing millions of persons in senseless wars and suggest that we are some kind of abomination. Feel your bum Agers! w ...[text shortened]... been nor shall ever be a cult, again assigning to us values that are inaccurate and misleading.
sarcasm
Scientology isn't a cult either!
As for not killing millions of people; that my friend, if I am to generously grant you this point, is most likely based (amongst other things) upon a shortage of history and adherents that have required & rejected blood transfusions on the back of twisted scripture interpretation to reach the millions mark.
I'm sure you'll catch up in good time :]
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75I've called you out on that outright lie before. I continually post scripture to back my arguments, you choose to ignore that fact. You then retreat to your fallback position that we refuse to see reason; so disagreeing with you is refusing to see reason? the difference is that we see the scriptures in completely different ways...and our way is usually right
OMG.....Where have you been?
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerLol..Not one of your arguments with the very few scriptures you've shown have been right.
I've called you out on that outright lie before. I continually post scripture to back my arguments, you choose to ignore that fact. You then retreat to your fallback position that we refuse to see reason; so disagreeing with you is refusing to see reason? the difference is that we see the scriptures in completely different ways...and our way is usually right
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe trouble I have with these scriptures you are quoting is that the process for
i found this,
The Book of Acts clearly shows that many years after the Jerusalem council issued that decree, Christians continued to comply with the "decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication." (Acts 21:25) They demonstrated that the requirement to a ...[text shortened]... u accept the temporary nature of the prohibition, is it not the case ?
__________________
BT is not part of the scope of discussion. It had to do with dietary restrictions so
you are applying it to something completely unrelated to the topic.
Kelly
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayyes the Bible does not state you shall not commit nuclear warfare, but the principle is there, the Bible does not state you shall not eat blood pudding, but the principle is there! Good grief Kelly, to state that a principle cannot be applied to numerous circumstances and that it is unrelated is like saying, 'you must not defile your mind and body', has nothing to do with inhaling intoxicants.
The trouble I have with these scriptures you are quoting is that the process for
BT is not part of the scope of discussion. It had to do with dietary restrictions so
you are applying it to something completely unrelated to the topic.
Kelly
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieeither Jesus is the fulfillment of Levitical law or he is not, which is it?
news flash ! news flash, report just in. The prohibition was also given to the first century Christians after the law had been nullified, after the death of Christ, please read your Bible daily.
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe Bible addresses food so blood pudding would be covered, it talks about wars,
yes the Bible does not state you shall not commit nuclear warfare, but the principle is there, the Bible does not state you shall not eat blood pudding, but the principle is there! Good grief Kelly, to state that a principle cannot be applied to numerous circumstances and that it is unrelated is like saying, 'you must not defile your mind and body', has nothing to do with inhaling intoxicants.
it talks about medical practices, it talks about saving lives and ending them, it talks
about doing the right thing, and so on. You are still applying a matter of food to
medical practices it is a reach as far as I'm concern. It talks about life being in the
blood, and the blood in the case of TF is only being done to save lives not acquire
some spiritual power, or to satisfy some lustful need, even King David broke some
rules/laws by eating things to save lives. There is a difference, but like I have
pointed out to others here if you are fully persuaded you must continue the practice
or you will be sinning if you go against your conscious, the issue I have is, it isn’t
Biblical since you are making two things related that have nothing to do with
each other.
Kelly
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThankyou Kelly you are, as far as i am aware the only person who has realised this, that in some instances it is not possible to compromise ones conscience, even in the face of death and i thank you for it.
The Bible addresses food so blood pudding would be covered, it talks about wars,
it talks about medical practices, it talks about saving lives and ending them, it talks
about doing the right thing, and so on. You are still applying a matter of food to
medical practices it is a reach as far as I'm concern. It talks about life being in the
blood, and the ...[text shortened]... blical since you are making two things related that have nothing to do with
each other.
Kelly
24 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerWhat is it you are yet failing to understand, yes Christ is the fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, however, the principles, as reiterated in hundreds of instances in the recorded word of God, to the first century Christians, are still valid! unless of course you wish to argue that stealing, murdering, coveting, dishonouring ones parents etc etc are no longer valid!
either Jesus is the fulfillment of Levitical law or he is not, which is it?