From: Debbie Mann (deborahjmann@insightbb.com)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 17:05:31 EDT
Jesus fulfilled the law. The epistles go on and on about how circumcision is
of no effect, everyone was condemned under the law because no one could
fulfill it etc.
A lot of Christian males get circumcised because they discovered logic
beneath the religious rule. It isn't required. Paul said he wished they'd
cut the whole thing off rather than argue about it - but the O.T. law had
it's health benefits.
The subjects which you are 'arguing' about really don't have a whole lot to
do with a post Christ sin issue. The fact that pork carried disease was very
valid before modern health practices - but the religious stigma was removed
with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I claim that while Leviticus is still valid for our learning - it has little
if any relevance to Christian doctrine. What it says may be wise and benefit
those who choose to follow the practices - much as cutting out fried foods
would. But, it has nothing to do with sin under the fulfilled law.
Eating smart, living smart isn't the same as eating holy, living holy.
Keep in mind Paul's passage about sacrificial meat. It's irrelevant to the
Christian whether the meat was sacrificed to idols or not. Not so under
Judaism.
I am not going to quit my job, nor bathe in the room with a rabbi in rain
water nor have sex through a sheet - as was part of certain Jewish cultures.
These rules do not pertain to me or my culture, nor would I have benefit in
following them. I am free - set free by the blood of the Lamb.
Wisdom is still to be sought after - but that is a different issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of RFaussette@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 2:33 PM
To: gmorbey@wlu.ca; jwburgeson@juno.com
Cc: gmurphy@raex.com; asa@calvin.edu; pastorcraigpeterson@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Sin?
In a message dated 7/9/03 12:25:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gmorbey@wlu.ca writes:
I am very much in agreement with both Burgy and George where they
demonstrate uncommon love for gays and lesbians over against hardened
prejudices and proof -texting.
You can't assume that a position contrary to theirs automatically stems
from an uncommon hate for gays or hardened prejudices and proof texting. The
type of psychological / anthropological reading of scripture I am doing
(which I don't see anyone else doing here) only finds religious truth in
conformity with science. It says nothing about my loving or not loving. If
everybody was gay, human life would end whether I was gay or not or liked
gays or not. That's a fact, not a position or an opinion.
rich
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 09 2003 - 17:07:14 EDT