Christians: What's bad about wool and linen blended together? - Page 3

PLOlover · #21 01-02-2007, 05:34 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt the penalty was death for that, but the penalty for witchcraft was.

Jeff W · #22 01-02-2007, 10:45 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt the penalty was death for that, but the penalty for witchcraft was.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_D%27arc

[ QUOTE ]
The technical reason for her execution was a biblical clothing law.[51]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
51. # ^ Deuteronomy 22:5.

[/ QUOTE ]

felson · #23 01-02-2007, 11:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

first, who said that adultery is no longer prohibited? i didn't. adultery falls under the realm of ethical laws, not dietary laws. (edit: i mentioned "purity" laws earlier - that refers to laws without ethical content. it has nothing to do with sex.)

second, i don't think that sexually transmitted diseases are generally expressions of God's judgment. just as i do not believe that getting AIDS is God judging someone for getting a blood transfusion, or that dying in a car crash is God judging someone for being on the same road as a drunk driver.

sometimes bad things happen. that doesn't mean that there was one particular sin that prompted God to bring about judgment. it doesn't even mean that the suffering person has done more evil than his non-suffering neighbor next door.

felson · #24 01-03-2007, 12:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

let me put it another way. you could eat nothing but carrots for the rest of your life, and you wouldn't be violating any dietary laws as far as Christians are concerned. your health will suffer, but i don't see how that could be called a health "penalty."

revots33 · #25 01-03-2007, 12:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't this a bit silly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really silly, more like a relic of the time it was written. What's silly is the few people who still take these ancient rules seriously today.

Like Dr. Laura using Leviticus to argue why homosexuality is an abomination. If you think that, then you must also think you can own Canadians as slaves.

PLOlover · #26 01-03-2007, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
you could eat nothing but carrots for the rest of your life, and you wouldn't be violating any dietary laws as far as Christians are concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that vegetarianism is called a "doctrine of devils" in the new testament, so there goes that.

felson · #27 01-03-2007, 04:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you could eat nothing but carrots for the rest of your life, and you wouldn't be violating any dietary laws as far as Christians are concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that vegetarianism is called a "doctrine of devils" in the new testament, so there goes that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not. Even if it were, you could change it to "eat nothing but kosher lamb" and the point would still hold.

It seems that you are missing the point.

Case Closed · #28 01-03-2007, 09:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you could eat nothing but carrots for the rest of your life, and you wouldn't be violating any dietary laws as far as Christians are concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that vegetarianism is called a "doctrine of devils" in the new testament, so there goes that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you point me in the direction of that in the bible plz.

Stu Pidasso · #29 01-03-2007, 09:43 AM

She was also cannonized a saint so apparently God did not hold her to the law.

Stu

Jeff W · #30 01-03-2007, 07:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
She was also cannonized a saint so apparently God did not hold her to the law.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, her original trial was a politically motivated farce for a variety of reasons--the Bishop who executed her was a puppet of the Duke of Bedford(representing Henry VI who Joan had effectively opposed in the succession by backing Charles VII).

The Bible made exceptions to Deuteronomy 22:5: Women were allowed to dress/cut their hair like men to preserve their chastity, to disguise themselves while travelling through enemy territory, to armour themselves for battle, etc, which were the reasons Jeanne wore men's apparel.