re: #209 Colère Tueur de Lapin

Quite a g good system - for safety. Primitives didn’t grok microorganisms and germ theory, but they knew how to avoid some consequences.

Nevertheless, the issue here to me is those who pull from wherever in the Bible to support their church’s position. Why is not mixing milk with meat a “good position?”

Most of the rules are not about food. Shellfish is a convenient go-to for a person outside Christianity to point out and notice that it is written eating shellfish is an abomination. If you are a person who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible (such as an Evangelical), I can call your stance hypocritical.

In those rules are also not mixing fabrics, not to gossip, a whole slew of rules about idols, not shaving the side of you head (no mullets), rapists must married the unwed woman they rape, do not mix crops in the field, seek your slaves from the lands around you but there are restrictions on what you can do with a Hebrew slave, &c. All these are abominations if violated.

The point here is for those who claim that the whole book is either the inspired or literal word of God, then ignoring them is ignoring the inspired or literal word of God.

As I pointed out, none of it makes any sense to me. An omnipotent and omniscient God could tell you why shellfish or pork could make you ill, and tell you how to prepare them (it’s not like there isn’t a whole bunch of dietary rules in there already).

I’m just noting that churches pick and choose which rules they follow, so for Presbyterians divorce is okay while for Catholics it’s forbidden. Dancing is prohibited to Baptists. Mennonites forego ornamentation on their cars, and prohibit television.

All of this can be justified in the Bible, just as the Evangelical positions can.

That’s kind of why I say it’s not up to me to say who is a true Christian and who is not. From my vantage point, they all follow the laws and rules as they interpret them.