Welcome to Gaia! ::

Acts 10:9-16
On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.



Mostly done for sanatary reasons. In reality, we still do this by cleaning ourselves after handling any dead thing, or sanatizing or destroying equipment that was used to do so. It's common health practice and therefore still has legitimate reason to exist. Also, as far as i can tell, it's still practiced.



Also still practiced, women are just scientifically cleansed faster these days. Back then it was done to give the woman time to heal and recover, and now, the same principle applies, it's just handled by a doctor. You have to remember that the jewish people didn't HAVE doctors, the religious tribe (levites) handled all these things. In matters reguarding health, a lot of responsibility was lifted from the religious leaders and given to healthcare professionals around the time of Christ. Christ never specifically mentioned this was acceptable practice, but he never accused people of sin for doing so, and there are other passages of scripture where people are encouraged to see doctors for ailments. Basicly it signifies the passing of responsiblity from the religious to the non-religious for healthcare reasons.




already responded to this above in the kosher diet thing you mentioned.



principles for giving to the poor were maintained and changed at various places in the New Testament. Not mixing crops is still practiced and considered a rather common sense practice. The non blending of wool and linen should be obvious as wool shrinks and linen does not. Still practiced. The principle of males not being as responsible as females was changed in the new testament as in christ there is no "male or female, slave nor free" etc. It's mentioned several places. The not eating of the fruit trees was a practice of good farming and sacrificing part of your earnings to God, both of which are still practiced. The Bible still puts restricitons on appearance, but there were changed in the New Testament to principles of modesty rather then ritualistic tradition. It's been replaced.



Romans 13:3-4

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The Government is still given the right to execute even in the NT. I support the death penalty.



Hebrews clearly teaches in chapter 5 that all christians are priests and, while the responsibilites remain the same, the practices are different. We no longer need the tradition and ritual that is in the old testament. The principle that's repeated over and over again in the NT is faith in Christ's work of salvation, not in your ablility to perform certian rites and ceremonies.

here's an interesting link that shows how Jesus treated women and how it's a model for modern christians:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm

as for homosexuality, here's some NT passages:

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

1Corithians 6:9-11: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

the sections i've underlined are, in the original language, euphamisims for homosexuals (the literal translation is 'man-bedder'

I'd like to state, once again, since someone just looking at this post would think i'm a homophobic or a basher, I'm just trying to show that the bible clearly says this is sin. The bible elsewhere takes a hard stance on EVERY sin, and while some of these passages proably seem very agressive and blunt, i've cut them out of context for the sake of easy posting (feel free to look them up if you'd like, it dosn't change the fact that it's teaching against homosexual behavior, but it should help to make them seem much less offensive when read in context.) The Bible frequently talks about God's love for sinners who struggle with every kind of sin, and this is no different.

Oh, and thanks. Like i've said, i think about this stuff a lot. I think it's important to understand what you believe and not just accept what other people tell you. I've had bad experiences with just blindly following someone's teaching.

When does that come up in normal, everyday conversation anyway?

"Did you catch the Redskins game last night?"
"Yeah, it rocked! Santana Moss FTW!"
"I know! I'm pro-life!"
"Where the hell did that come from?"

With me? All the effing time. XD

I tend to dwell on things....so...it hits me pretty hard...then i think about it more...and look around my life and wonder...

First thing I thought when I saw who was the most recent poster was, "Yay! Wisdo!" whee

Welcome back!

I can sort of understand the "Personal Pro-Life, political Pro-Choice." People who are that way typically believe that the fetus is a living person yadda yadda, or at least believe that they are too close to decide either way, but they believe that the mother's bodily integrity comes first. They don't believe that the fetus should have a legal right to use the mother's nutrients, and to use the mother as a home. So they believe that it should be a choice. However, they believe that the right choice is to not have an abortion. They just don't think it should be legally enforced.