"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:amai27$cu4$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <q_Ug9.16695$S32.1300482 at news2.west.cox.net> "John Knight"
<jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
> <
> <
> <"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> <news:i107ou83lvgq9l1os9khi0tleui85p4bi5 at 4ax.com...> <> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> <>
> {...}
> <
> <God made no mistakes. Christ repeated numerous times that He didn't come
to
> <change the law so that BONEHEADS like you might eventually get the
picture:
> <"Does this mean that we do away with the law by this faith? No, not at
all;
> <instead we uphold the law", Romans 3:31. "And it is easier for heaven
and
> <earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail", Luke 16:17. "Do not
> <think that I came to annul the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to
annul,
> <but to [fully uphold it]", Matthew 5:17.
> <
>>> Speaking of which, you appear to somehow overlooked my question to
> you on this, the one regarding the practical and personal consequences
> of this viewpoint. Here, kindly allow me to repeat that particular
> posting:
>>>>>>> In article <11c4ou0om43k0aflka48hoq2eijrfag02p at 4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab at lojban.org> writes:
> <
> <"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> <
> {...}
> <>
> <>The law never changed.
> <
>> <Correct. Therefore the law was never what you claim that the law was.
> <It is only your perversion of the law that leads to there being any
> <issue with Ruth. The standard interpretation of the law described in
> <the Bible has no problem with miscegenation so long as the people
> <married convert to following the covenant of Moses and Abraham.
> <
>> <>It's still law to this very day. To the 2 billion
> <>Christians in the world, it's more important than ever:
> <
>>> <No it isn't. MOST of the laws in the Old Testament are ignored by
> <Christians. Do you celebrate Passover? Do you avoid pork? Do you not
> <mix meat and dairy products?
>>>> Ol' John has always, ALWAYS evaded this one. It's not for lack of
> our asking; it could be termed "that hoary lobster question". Perhaps
> it should be the lead question in the John Knight FAQ, questions
> frequently asked of John which cause him to run and hide?
>> So, John, be a man, stand up and firmly state your beliefs: do you eat
lobster?
>> ANSWER =>
>>> Hey, I'll make it easer -- forget the food laws, perhaps these are
> just too hard -- how about laws handed down by YWH on clothing?
> Beards? If you accidentally touch an unclean animal, do you bring a
> lamb or goat to be sacrificed? Provide olive oil for the lamps?
>>> ANSWER =>
>>>> Please do remember, someone on this group once wrote:
>>> The Holy Bible isn't a smorgasbord where you get to pick and
> choose the parts you want, and throw out the rest.
>>> -- cary
What is it about "liberals" that they never seem to be able to understand
the concept of "public debate" or "social commentary" or "Biblical
exegesis", and instead must diddle with little personal niglets all the
time?
Do you have any idea, cary, how many opportunities to address the key issues
you've blown just because you can't get your head out?
One person's "opinion" has nada, nothing, zero, zilch, to do with presenting
the *facts* about the relationship between brain size, intelligence, and
religion, nor with critiquing the theories being presented.
If you can't follow it, why waste your time with it?
John Knight
