leaking pen wrote: > Umm, > > Leviticus 11:9-12 says: > 9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath > fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them > shall ye eat. > 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the > rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which > is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: > 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of > their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. > 12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an > abomination unto you. > > Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says: > 9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins > and scales shall ye eat: > 10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is > unclean unto you. > > So, NO SHELLFISH FOR YOU!
This is getting a little surreal, methinks. You're the one who excepted shellfish, not me -- but, as it happens, you didn't say what they were excepted from. Being left to guess what the exception referred to, I merely observed that shellfish -- unlike people -- were never required to follow the Laws. If an oyster chooses not to keep kosher nobody much cares. If you can see anywhere in the Bible where it says, say, a shrimp will be stoned if it picks up sticks on a Saturday, please point it out. (Surely it will be stoned if it chooses to live in the waters of a bong, but that's something else again...) In any case Deuteronomy is pseudepigraphic. It was written hundreds of years after the other books of the Pentateuch, by priests fleeing from the fall of the Northern Kingdom. So it doesn't count. > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> leaking pen wrote: >>> Well, to go for classic evangelical christian belief, likely that >>> jesus is the son of god, died for our sins, and that salvation can >>> only come through him. >> I think you leaked a word or two here; this sentence contains only >> dependent clauses. What's the proposed righteous activity which goes >> with these assertions? >> >> >>> Oh, and that, even though Christ himself >>> rejected large parts of the laws of the old testament, you have to >>> follow them verbatim. except shellfish and mixing fabrics. >> Shellfish have never been required to follow the laws of the Old Testament. >> >> And of course some laws no longer apply, such as the one against eating >> four footed insects (Leviticus 11:20-23) since we now count six feet on >> all winged insects, AFAIK. >> >> On the other hand, if one accepts one popular "zero-error" explanation >> of that particular set of verses -- which is that the big hopping legs >> of grasshoppers, katydids, and so forth were not counted as "feet" -- >> then, if one also accepts all the rest of the "except for" notes in that >> particular sequence of verses, then one must conclude that: >> >> a) Locusts and their kin are OK to eat (they're called out >> specifically, "... you *may* eat ... those that have legs above their >> feet, with which to leap...") >> >> b) Cockroaches, which either walk on six feet (when strolling) or *two* >> (when they're really in a hurry), are certainly not "four footed" >> insects by anybody's measure, so .. it's also OK to eat cockroaches. >> >> Yum, chow down, guys! >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:52 AM, OrionWorks <svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Thomas, >>>> >>>> You brought up many interesting issues for which most are ripe for >>>> comment. I will try to restrain myself and endeavor to remain on-topic >>>> of this OT subject thread: The Rapture. >>>> >>>> I asked: >>>> >>>>>> I'm puzzled, Thomas. What are your criteria for qualification for >>>>>> rapture status? >>>> You replied with: >>>> >>>>> You need to believe and follow a path of righteousness. >>>> ...along with: >>>> >>>>> Unless you believe and pursue righteousness you will be excluded. >>>>> Your good deeds are as filthy rags in the sight of the L-rd. >> It appears, based on this statement, that pursuing "righteousness" is at >> odds with doing "good deeds". >> >> Does this explain some of the behavior of some members of the Religious >> Right? >> >> >>>> What are some of these righteous activities that must be believed in >>>> and pursued? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Steven Vincent Johnson >>>> www.OrionWorks.com >>>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks >>>> >>>> >> >
