Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Pams Pressure & Clean

Why I'm called a malcontent......

Question

Because I like to share things like these.......

Why can't I own Canadians?

Dear President Bush,

Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same *** marriage.

As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

FYI - Old law was done away with. You can refer homo's to Romans chapter 1. And old law with its punishments and ordinances isn't what we live under today. You won't find this in the new testament. Props to Bush for trying to envoke some kind of morality in our vile world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

:lol:Now thats what I call Thumpin! :rotfl:

Rod~

btw...the old version might have been done away with, but I believe what Cujo is saying is...bush quoted it! An antiquated version to support his position. Probably fed to him by his support team and not a legitimate knowledge of his own.

Otherwise, I would tend to think that if he truly does read and understand the new from the old, why wouldnt he site the difference? It speaks badly of a person to be deceptive enough to use such a passage that is no longer a part of the current teachings.

Nice to have morals, but I prefer the practice of not misleading the people, or substantiation by ignoble ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The problem I have is people who use the bible and God and make a mockery of it. Obviously you people don't know the first thing about God or his word, if you did you wouldn't make such comments or back them up by defending those who make them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

All-

This post was merely meant to serve as a lesson to not take ourselves so seriously.

Not to start a theological nor necessarily political argument. I save those tidbits for REAL fun :):)

The message clearly illustrates that one can take number of reference(s) from all over the Bible to make just about any political agenda seem divinely ordained.

FWIW, I am a Bush supporter in terms of his re-election, but do not necessarily subscribe to all of his political goals. These arguments are saved for a different time.

Please do not read more into this than there really is......just admire the thought that someone put into this as they are clearly versed in scripture or at least skilled enough with search and paste functions to create something with some good clean humor...

Cujo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
FYI - Old law was done away with. You can refer homo's to Romans chapter 1. And old law with its punishments and ordinances isn't what we live under today. You won't find this in the new testament. Props to Bush for trying to envoke some kind of morality in our vile world.

who did away with the old laws? Didn't Jesus say..anyone who changes one iota of these words..blah,blah....goin' to hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The Mosaic Law as it applies to the New Testament Christian is complex and can be confusing without alot of reflection...That being said...God instituted marriage with the first man and woman, Adam and Eve (Gen 2:20-24) Thus the Biblical formula for marriage is "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife,and they shall be one flesh". (v.24)

This obviously is from the Old Testament but is in no way an "antiquated version"

In the New Testament Christ reaffirms this marriage formula in Matthew (19:4-6) "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh" (v. 5) So today when one says "marriage is between a man and a woman" it is most assuredly "current teachings"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Jesus fulfilled the old law, lived it perfectly and then at the time of his death the old law was nailed to the cross, and the new law was invoked. Thus the law that the apostles taught. If we were still under the old law today, we would have to sacrifice animals, use levite priests, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Americans say "I'm hot" to describe a feeling of uncomfortably high body temperature, usually due to higher than desirable atmospheric temperature. Translated literally into german, one would say "Ich bin heiss." To a german, however, that statement translates back into the equivalent of "I'm horny."

Now, if such a simple thing can be misconstrued between two etymologically similar languages, don't you think misconceptions can be made when tranlating from aramaic and other original biblical languages into present-day versions? And the fact that proper education was not widespread at the time, I'm sure we are not fully grasping the true meaning of what Peter, Paul, or Mary had to say at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Jesus fulfilled the old law, lived it perfectly and then at the time of his death the old law was nailed to the cross, and the new law was invoked. Thus the law that the apostles taught. If we were still under the old law today, we would have to sacrifice animals, use levite priests, etc...

where do you get this idea from? Did the people at the time know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Dale,

Yeah, that's pretty much the whole point behind the "ultimate sacrifice." It's the prevailing idea behind Christianity and anyone who was a follower at the time knew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Let's talk about pilgrims and turkeys!!

Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

It's good to see that some of us pressure washers are deeper than just washing dirt off of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Let's talk about pilgrims and turkeys!!

Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

It's good to see that some of us pressure washers are deeper than just washing dirt off of stuff.

..turkey..GOOOD...pilgrims...eehhhh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Dale,

Yeah, that's pretty much the whole point behind the "ultimate sacrifice." It's the prevailing idea behind Christianity and anyone who was a follower at the time knew it.

Hi RyanH It seems the old T is mixed with the new T..WHO determined what verses were transferable and how they were to be interpreted? This is just a rehtorical question no real need to answer or it may start a whole religious/political/moral thread and those can go on for ever and for some reason many people find it offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×