Christians: What's bad about wool and linen blended together?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of the law - the quote is from the Old Testament. Thus Jews should be asked the question, too. Including Christians in the question is fine, but directing the question solely to Christians makes one suspect the motives of the OP in asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that any Jews frequent this forum..at least I haven't seen any around...no Muslims either I believe.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
so they fall under the same category as the dietary restrictions, which are lifted in passages such as Acts 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

How come eating fat in violation of OT law still causes heart disease then?

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Its the old testament, the mixing fabrics issue was a cultural statement for the hebrew nation to distinguish them from the surrounding cultures (which were pretty messed up ex: Assyrians, Samarians, etc), and the crossdressing thing is god stating the importence of an individuals uality as he created them.


[/ QUOTE ]

[No_Mercy]

Maybe God doesn't take too kindly to people not being appreciative of the gender He assigned to them? Sorta like returning a gift.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that any Jews frequent this forum..at least I haven't seen any around...no Muslims either I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you are correct as to practicing religious believers. However there are plenty of agnostic/atheist Jews in this forum.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so they fall under the same category as the dietary restrictions, which are lifted in passages such as Acts 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

How come eating fat in violation of OT law still causes heart disease then?

[/ QUOTE ]

the lifted restriction doesn't have to do with health benefits. it only means that it is no longer prohibited.

[madnak]

And why, when God made the covenant with Abraham, did he require Abraham to take the foreskins of all his family and servants, and to see to it that the foreskins of his family and servants throughout his descendants were also cut off? Keep in mind that this was definitely unhealthy at the time.

Now, this is the specific sign that God requested to represent his chosen people. It's irrelevant whether the law applies now. The point is that of all the possible signs God could have chosen (hey, he could have simply waved a hand and "stamped" everyone with a mark), he chose the removal of the outside of the penis as the great indication of His people. Did he have a good reason for doing this, or is he just a pervert?

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that of all the possible signs God could have chosen (hey, he could have simply waved a hand and "stamped" everyone with a mark), he chose the removal of the outside of the penis as the great indication of His people. Did he have a good reason for doing this, or is he just a pervert?

[/ QUOTE ]

stamping wouldn't work because the sign was to be voluntarily adopted (or given by the parents).

as for why circumcision, i don't know.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." -- Deuteronomy 22:5

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this the law under which Jeanne D'Arc was sentenced to death?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
the lifted restriction doesn't have to do with health benefits. it only means that it is no longer prohibited.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why is there still the health penalty?

If adultery is no longer prohibited, why are there still venereal diseases?