Religion: pros & cons (Religion)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 17, 2014, 03:22 (3688 days ago) @ dhw

(I had to cull for brevity... sorry)-To address these in order:-Rejection of Blood Transfusions:-NO cherry picking necessary. Blood is considered sacred (Lev 17:11; Gen 9:1,5,6) and humans were commanded not to ingest it (Deut 12:15-16). The only scripturally legit use of blood was for sacrificial atonement of sins, but that was done away with when the Mosaic Law Covenant was. (See previous post).Numerous scriptures link blood to life (Lev 17:11, Gen 4:10, 9:5-6; Num 35:33; (Ex 12:7, 22, 23; 1Co 5:7) The Law covenant, which had a typical sin-removing feature, was validated by the blood of animals. (Ex 24:5-8, Heb 10:1-4, 8-10) The prohibition against blood was reaffirmed in the NT at (Acts 15:19-20, 28-29) So, a simple question, if you would not eat something, would you mainline it into your bloodstream?-On Onan-A son of Judah, his second by the Canaanite daughter of Shua. (Ge 38:2-4; 1Ch 2:3) After Onan's childless older brother Er was put to death by Jehovah for wrongdoing, Onan was told by Judah to perform brother-in-law marriage with Er's widow Tamar. If a son was produced, he would not be the founder of Onan's family, and the firstborn's inheritance would belong to him as an heir to Er; whereas if no heir came, Onan would get the inheritance for himself. When Onan had relations with Tamar, he “wasted his semen on the earth” instead of giving it to her. This was not an act of masturbation on the part of Onan, for the account says “when he did have relations with his brother's wife” he spilled his semen. Apparently it was a case of “coitus interruptus,” in which Onan purposely prevented ejaculation of his semen into Tamar's genital tract. For his disobedience to his father, his covetousness, and his sin against the divine arrangement of marriage, not for self-abuse, Onan, himself also childless, was put to death by Jehovah.—Ge 38:6-10; 46:12; Nu 26:19.-
> 
> Jeremiah prophesies that there will be a new covenant, thanks to which God will write his law into the hearts of the Jews. You tell me this means that I as a Jew will be allowed to marry a Christian. Does it? The rest of your references are from the NT, which wouldn't count for much with the rabbi who refused to intercede with my father because according to him, the bible forbade me to marry outside the faith. But of course he would not have accepted your claim that the NT invalidates the divinely inspired Mosaic Law. Even your NT references simply talk of a new covenant, though, and when Paul (the same guy who forbade my wife to get yoked to an unbeliever, and therefore by definition an unrighteous man) says: “For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness”, does he really mean it's OK for a Christian to marry an agnostic Jew? 
> -First, your Rabbi obviously was not overly familiar with the OT, which in fact made provisions for marrying outside of the faith. (De 21:10-14) Granted, this referred to marrying captives, but it does in fact prove that there were provisions for it. The prohibitions were specifically against those from the land of Canaan who were involved with Baal worship and human sacrifices.(Ex 34:14-16; De 7:1-4) This would not have applied to relationships between Jews and Christians because they both (supposedly) serve Jehovah (The difference being the acceptance of Christ). I am not exactly certain how you could be both agnostic and Jewish though... That is like saying you were black white man. - Further, the new covenant was not limited to the Jews at all. In fact, the Jewish Nation (as a group, not individuals) broke their covenant with Jehovah. The new covenant applies to people of all nations, including Jews, that follow God's laws. (Lev. 24:22; Num. 15:15; 1Ti 2:5, 6; 1Jo 2:2; Gal. 3:8, 9;) The 'Israel' being referred to in Jeremiah's prophecy is a nation unified in spirit and purpose, not bound by blood. (1 PETER 2:10;Ho 2:23; Ro 9:22-25; Mt 21:43; Isa 10:21, 22; Ro 9:27.) Yes, Christ fulfilled the law and we are no longer bound by its provisions. When something is fulfilled, it is completed. - 
> ..1 Peter 3:1,2: I have difficulty understanding this,..-“In like manner, you wives, be in subjection to your own husband, in order that, if any(husbands) are not obedient to the word(Christ), they may be won(won over to Christ) without a word through the conduct of (their) wives, because of having been eyewitnesses of your chaste conduct together with deep respect.”-In a sense, it is telling wives that badgering an unbelieving mate will not win them over, but rather, living bible principles and demonstrating why they are a superior way of life will win their mate over without them having to say a word. Also Read This: 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.-> 
> DHW: I'll argue the toss over the conclusions the experts draw, because they see the same material and cannot agree among themselves what it means. It seems to me that the bible is as wide open to interpretation as virtually every other subject connected with the great mystery of life.-
The bible is only wide open to interpretation when people ignore what it says either through ignorance, malice, or in the pursuit of self-interest.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.