Answer this then. Do you follow or are advocates of any of these laws?
Eating fat (3:17) [That one’s “a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live.” All fat is to be saved for offerings to God.
…Eat neither that is, neither the blood which is contained in the larger {veins} and {arteries}, nor the {fat} or suet which is within the animal, which exists in a separate or unmixed state, as the {omentum} or {caul}, the fat of the {mesentery}, or fatty part of the substance which connects the convolutions of the alimentary canal or small intestines, the fat of the {kidneys}, and whatever else of the internal fat was easily separable, and fat which is intermixed with the other flesh, might be eaten.
So that piece of fat on the bacon (pork!) should probably be peeled off then? I mean, I could throw it in the bin but what a waste. I'm afraid I don't have an altar in my backyard in which to sacrifice it to. I don't think my local church will be too pleased with me putting it on their alter either, so.... What am I to do?
Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4) - and then only after she has offered a sacrifice to God
Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5) - and then only after she has offered a sacrifice to God
If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of the separation of her flowers.
And on the eighth day the infant shall be circumcised:
But she shall remain three and thirty days in the blood of her purification. She shall touch no holy thing, neither shall she enter into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification be fulfilled.
But if she shall bear a maid child, she shall be unclean two weeks, according to the custom of her monthly courses, and she shall remain in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.
I know of no church that turns women away after giving birth within this time or checks whether they are on their period. What say you to the women who break this law? I'm guessing its pretty serious because it was given in the same speech about putting to death adulterers, incest relationships and men laying with other men etc
Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19) Oh boy, I guess almost everyone alive today is guilty of this.
Cross-breeding animals (19:19) - I guess you not a fan of most dogs/cats then
These practices might have been considered as altering the original constitution of God in creation; and this is the view which the Jews, and also Josephus and Philo, take of the subject. There were, probably, also both moral and political reasons for these prohibitions. With respect to heterogenous mixtures among {cattle}, it was probably forbidden, to prevent excitements to the condemned abominations.
As to {seeds}, in many cases, it would be highly improper to sow different kinds in the same plot of ground. If {oats} and {wheat}, for instance, were sown together, the latter would be {injured}, and the former {ruined}. This prohibition may therefore be regarded as a prudential agricultural maxim.
As to different kinds of {garments}, the prohibition might be intended against pride and vanity in clothing. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that ‘wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister’
So I guess my cotton/bamboo blend undies/socks are no good then. The mixing of seeds planting in the same fields was another law. This one relates to blending the materials or wearing say a cotton shirt with a woollen jumper. These days we also use a lot of synthetics like nylon or polyester. They can create static on their own.
I'm still not sure if cross breeding animals means within the same species (such as a German Shepard x Labrador dog) or across different species like a donkey and a horse to get a mule. Either way. What's wrong with either of them? (apart from a mule being sterile that is)
Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23) - Have you checked whether the fruit
you buy fits in with this law?
I see no great reason to seek for mystical meanings in this prohibition. The fruit of a young tree cannot be good; for not having arrived at a state of maturity, the juices cannot be sufficiently elaborated to produce fruit excellent in its kind. Probably the object was to allow the tree time to become accustomed to the soil, and so to postpone the enjoyment of the fruit till both quantity and quality had had time to develop. The Israelites are commanded not to eat of the fruit of a tree till the fifth year after its planting. In this way the harvest will be increased and in good quality.
What do you know about agriculture?
I'm not an agriculturalist however my own plum tree at less than 4 years bore fruit. Peach and Apple trees can also produce fruit before 4 years. Whether or not I eat it has no bearing or impact on the development of the tree. It would fall to the ground and otherwise rot.
Trimming your beard (19:27) - I guess you must have a long beard and never ever use a shaver
Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27) - I guess you look pretty uncouth and look with disdain upon others who get the usual 'short back/sides hair cut'
Getting tattoos (19:28) - Curious to your opinion? It's okay to cut of parts of baby boys penises because - religion. What about tribal people who get tatts because - tribe? Are you going to condemn them?
It was a ritual custom of the heathen to cut or trim their beards and hair into special shapes in honor of a particular pagan deity. To honor the sun god Ra, the ancient Egyptians had their dark locks cropped short or shaved with great care so the hair that remained on the crown appeared in the form of a circle surrounding the head (from which the halo derives), while the beard was dressed in a square form. Alternatively, a round bald spot might be shaved on the head.
It is this type of false worship the Bible forbids. Shaving one's beard and cutting one's hair for normal good grooming is something entirely different and not at all condemned in the Scriptures. In fact, the apostle Paul takes great pains to address proper grooming of one's hair in I Corinthians 11:2-15.
Tattoo marks are of a pagan belief and are forbidden, as well as gashes on the bodies for the dead.
Okay so in the modern era it is now totally fine to trim my hair and beard for grooming practices but was blasphemous back in the day (and punishable by death!) Thanks for clearing that up. I wonder what else is acceptable in the modern age? With our hygiene and cleanliness practices that were not possible 3000+ years ago I wonder if we could apply that to the rule of circumcision to no longer be required in the eyes of God
Apostle Paul also went through pains to tell us it was no longer a requirement
Gal. 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love."
Romans 2:29 "Real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal"
Phil 3:3 "For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh."
He reiterated it through his letters
Col 3:9-11 "Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."
I am not a theologian but you can Google plenty of insightful answers to circumcision, searching 'apostle Paul circumcision' In fact, I cant find any text in the New Testament that says circumcision is necessary for salvation.
Basically, what he was at pains to say (such as your linking to 1 Corinthians 11:2-15. on grooming) is that
the rite of circumcision is not required for salvation But I guess you are smarter and a better theologian than Paul because you are telling everyone that it is.
I'll put it bigger and colourful for you so you can see it clearer
the rite of circumcision is not required for salvationMistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)
33 If a stranger dwell in your land, and abide among you, do not upbraid him:
34 But let him be among you as one of the same country: and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
What is wrong with loving strangers as loving ourselves?
There is nothing wrong with it. Just pointing out the irony of many Christian countries and leaders immigration laws. But this also applies especially to Jews, but imagine Israel taking in refugees from Africa or Lebanon or how they treat people in the Gaza strip etc. It was also in realtion to how Dr Kellogg on one hand was very religious to the point of putting carbonic acid on womens clitorises in a vain attempt to stop them thinking 'evil' and vulgar thoughts but on the other, was a big fan of eugenics and against immigration and inter racial marriages. Hypocrite much?
Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
Curseth The term {yekallel} signifies not only to curse, but to speak contemptuously, disrespectfully, or to make light of a person: so that all speeches which have a tendency to lessen our parents in the eyes of others, or to render their judgment, piety, etc., suspected or contemptible, is her included; though the act of cursing, or of treating the parent with injurious or opprobrious language, is what is particularly intended. He who conscientiously keeps the {fifth} commandment, can be in no danger of the judgment here denounced.
Yes, that's what the law says but does that same law apply today and do you believe the punishment of death is fitting? If not why not?
Putting someone to death also violates the commandment 'thou shalt not kill'. If these people must be 'cut off' couldn't they just banish them? And then when they die that God then punishes them?
Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)
The Laws here concerning the priests only! Why do you even care as an individual?
Because priests are Godly. They must set the example for us to follow. If we see a priest in a cemetery, what are we supposed to think? Yet over every funeral procession - there they are. Maybe times have changed in the past 3000+ years
Working on the Sabbath (23:3) - So.... Have you? Moses had a man stoned to death for this
Blasphemy (24:14) This ones always open to interpretation and is punishable by death
An Israelite woman's son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel. And the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel fought in the camp, and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. Then they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, till the will of the Lord should be clear to them.
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And speak to the people of Israel, saying, whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.
He was stoned because he cursed god in public and not because he worked on the Sabbath – In that time cursing god was considered the biggest of sins, especially on the Sabbath!
Different story. regarding working on the Sabbath I am referring to this story
Numbers 15:32-36 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.
But my question to you (because you seem pretty Old Testament) is what do you think of people today who work on the Sabbath? Do you believe they should be put to death? Otherwise, if this is another thing that is acceptable in the modern age, why are you still hell bent on circumcising babies and not even considering the possibility of allowing them to choose for themselves later on?
You shouldn’t play around with the verses and alter their true meanings!!!I'm actually not. However
you are playing around with Christs true meaning and purpose.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
It does not stipulate you must be circumcised for this to take effect. Circumcision does not guarantee salvation either
Do you have anymore laws of God that bother you?
You can throw it at me - I can take it! 
I'm wondering what my punishment is for this one
Deuteronomy 12:23 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it;
neither eat any meat not fully cooked. Only when meat is cooked until it is white inside with no tinge of red or pink whatsoever insures that all blood had been removed.
But having a steak cooked 'well done' is a waste of a perfectly delicious steak!!! I like to get it 'medium' where it is still soft and moist! If it's 'well done' it is tough and dry
Will I burn in hellfire for this?
It also says
Leviticus 18:22 A man must not have sexual relations with another man.
So a lesbian relationship is okay then? Because I see no mention of women being forbidden to be with each other. Yet the gay hate (stemmed from religion) applies to women relationships as well as men relationships. What are your thoughts here?
I am still curious as to your thoughts on circumcision for girls because you can argue for 'health' and 'cleanliness' reasons, it could be done routinely. Otherwise why only boys and not girls?
Well I cherry pick too and I say that mutilating babies is wrong
And who cares what you think - do you honestly think with your ignorance you are going to change what God permitted or what He has forbidden?
I could say the same. In fact, what you advocate goes against many of the New Testaments teachings and the purpose of Christ. So there. I say again and read very carefully here....
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
A small cut on the skin which the boy will benefit much more as an adult - you think is wrong, and I think is right - end of subject here!
It is not a 'small cut' on the skin. It is the removal of a body part that has tens of thousands of nerve endings. When done on babies it is done without the consent of the owner of that body. Tell the people in developing countries who are
bleeding to death or have had their
penis amputated that it 'just a small cut'
When done for 'cosmetic reasons' (eg non religious parents but think a circumcised penis 'looks' better', it is abhorrent that the baby was not given a chance to choose
It's benefits for hygienic reasons in our developed societies has proved dubious and irrelevant. Millions of babies have to be cut to save a few children from an easily gotten over infection which in all likelihood, was probably brought on through poor hygiene practice on the part of the person (or caregivers)
It has been well established that for religious reasons to anyone apart from Jewish faith (as they do not recognise Jesus or the New Testament) that it is no longer a requirement and irrelevant. As for Jews, I'm allowed to think this particular ritual is barbaric and unjust. Unless of course you are against freedom of thought and speech.
The bible was actually spot on selecting the 8th day as that is when the platelet count is highest however. Props for that. However most babies in hospital undergo the procedure well short of this
I'm an advocate for circumcision in only 2 instances. When there is a medical need or when the person is old enough to choose. I believe circumcision in the absence of any medical need or personal choice of the person is a 'human rights violation' and constitutes abuse of the infant.
the rite of circumcision is not required for salvation