Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Harris Is Uniting and Energizing Democratic Voters — and Polling Better Against Trump
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 23, 2024 5:18 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [29 views]


538: Kamala Harris approval tanking
Media by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 4:26 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [9 views]


Baha. Andy Beshear claims JD Vance ha'int no real hillbilly
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 3:48 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [5 views]


The Kackler wins enough support to clinch Democratic nomination
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 23, 2024 3:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [6 views]


Republican try the same ploy that worked on Bernie Sanders supporters in 2016
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 22, 2024 3:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [68 views]


Donald Trump is angry and frustrated today.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 21, 2024 8:55 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (20 comments) [145 views]


Harris/______?
Politics by Ponderer     July 21, 2024 12:09 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (32 comments) [244 views]


Will anyone challenge Harris?
Politics by ROB3RT     July 21, 2024 3:29 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (16 comments) [141 views]


I already like the way Harris is taking on Trump
Politics by Curt_Anderson     July 22, 2024 3:24 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [68 views]


JOE MANCHIN FOR PRESIDENT
Politics by HatetheSwamp     July 21, 2024 5:37 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [66 views]


Religion selectors, pages, etc.
Quick religious question...
By Ponderer
July 10, 2024 6:40 am
Category: Religion

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Donna and I were discussing this just this morning and we are both curious. Perhaps some resident Christian forum member can answer this for us...


What is the scriptural justification for Christians no longer having to obey Kosher laws?


I don't recall anything about this back in my private Christian high school days. We had mandatory Bible class three times a week for my whole four years there. I don't remember the question ever coming up or being covered in any way.

And actually, it's not just Kosher laws. There are tons of Old Testament laws that Jesus and all His disciples were raised obeying that I don't recall Him ever specifically cancelling. Yeah I know Jesus brought new teachings to His followers, but I don't recall Him ever calling for the abandonment of the Old Testament Jewish laws of the day, like what you were allowed to eat.

It just seems to me that if there's a law, and it isn't ever officially rescinded or overturned, that the law is generally assumed to still be in force. I know that this is a common belief with conservatives in general.

Where does Jesus ever say, "Hey go ahead and slurp up all the crustaceans you want to now! It's cool! My Dad doesn't care anymore! Knock yourselves out!"

Any former seminarians here who could clear this up for us?


Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Quick religious question...":

  1. by Curt_Anderson on July 10, 2024 7:41 am
    I know many of you look to me for answers to religious questions. Today I will allow the late, great Kinky Friedman to offer you some enlightenment...or not.


    genius.com


  2. by Ponderer on July 10, 2024 7:56 am

    Yeah, Curt. They ain't making Christians like Jesus anymore either.


  3. by HatetheSwamp on July 10, 2024 7:59 am

    How many "resident Christian forum members" do we have today?


  4. by HatetheSwamp on July 10, 2024 8:20 am

    As I recall Curt grew up Episcopal. Donna, Lutheran. If so, both sort of hoity toity, high church Protestant. Still, durind Communion, your priest/minister probably said something like, "He took the cup saying,'This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you.'"

    Very, very oversimplified...

    The prophet Jeremiah predicted the coming of a "new covenant" not like the old covenant of the law. Jeremiah 31:27-34ish.

    During the "Last supper," Jesus was declaring that His death would be the sacrifice that initiated the New Covenant and and brought the Old Covenant to an end.


  5. by Ponderer on July 10, 2024 8:28 am

    So Christians just get to decide what this New Covenant is and exactly which laws are now rescinded and which are to be supported and used against non-believers...? Since Scripture was never specific about exactly what this New Covenant entailed...?

    As my question was in no way answered, I shall attempt to posit it again...


    What is the scriptural justification for Christians no longer having to obey Kosher laws?


    And now a new question arises:


    Who set up the current Cristian faith to accept some Biblical laws while abolishing others?



  6. by HatetheSwamp on July 10, 2024 8:53 am

    I said very, very oversimplified.

    The Kosher laws are part of the Old Covenant Law.

    If you have additional specific questions, I'll answer them to the best of my ability


  7. by Ponderer on July 10, 2024 9:34 am

    Thanks you, Bill.

    So it's up to each denomination to decide which of God's original laws no longer apply to them and which ones do? So which denomination has the New Covenant right then? It seems that there is an awful lot of diversity in the deciphering of New Testament scriptures about it.

    I understand that the Ten Commandments are still in effect and are considered a permanent part of Christianity. So then why do so very many Christians wipe their sanctimonious asses with several of them whenever they've a mind to? They just wave the New Covenant flag and that absolves them...?


    Many Christians believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a form of commentary on the Ten Commandments. In the Expounding of the Law, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (e.g. Mathew 5:17–18 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled)


    Eeesh! Seems like He was pretty clear in His commentary on God's established laws there.


    en.wikipedia.org


  8. by Ponderer on July 10, 2024 9:39 am

    I just think that it's important for people to familiarize themselves with this stuff, since our Constitution is possibly about to be replaced with it.


  9. by HatetheSwamp on July 10, 2024 9:57 am

    Snide, po. I knew that you weren't earnest.

    And, I'll note EFFINagain that you are fixated on the blending of state and religion.

    And, the remarkable thing about the Louisiana Ten Commandments poster law is that they ain't Christian.

    Good freakin friggin EFFINpoint!


  10. by Ponderer on July 10, 2024 10:24 am

    Yeah. I kinda knew I shouldn't have added that part. I knew it would only give you an excuse to ignore a question that you can't answer. My bad.



  11. by Indy! on July 10, 2024 10:29 am

    Wow. Didn't realize the fake other "Christian" religions were actually rewriting Jesus' last words.


  12. by HatetheSwamp on July 10, 2024 10:33 am

    Rewriting Jesus' last words, Indy? Do tell.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on July 10, 2024 10:40 am

    ignore a question that you can't answer...

    Now, there's a blast from the past. You haven't pulled that one out in quite a while. The old, Do you still beat your wife?, question.

    As Carly Simon sang, Nobody does it better.

    BTW, is this the best Bond theme song or what?

    View Video


  14. by oldedude on July 10, 2024 10:47 am
    I do know that Johova Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists follow (pretty much?) Kosher Law. I'm not sure about the fine print. Some sects of Judaism follow the same rules set out by King David as it is in the Torah, which is supposed to be a very healthy diet.

    I didn't know, so I looked it up. AND it depends on the sect of Christianity you're talking about. The fish on Fridays and during Lent, etcetcetc.

    It is too bad this digressed from the original point you were wondering about. I actually thought you might, for once, have a legit question without a scam in it. Especially since your guy has proven to be more of a dictator than trumpster.

    Should Christians Keep Kosher?
    Dr. Gary Hedrick


    We have explained in previous articles that New Testament (NT) believers are under no legal obligation to observe the Old (Sinai) Covenant, because it was fulfilled during the earthly ministry of the Messiah.

    The purpose of the Old Covenant was to point the way to Him. Once God came and fulfilled its requirements, the Sinai Covenant gave way to the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31).

    The Messiah has freed us from the Sinai Covenant and its legal requirements through His death on the Cross (Col. 2:13-14). Now we are under the authority of the New Covenant, and our Torah is the New Testament.




  15. by Ponderer on July 10, 2024 11:30 am

    " I actually thought you might, for once, have a legit question without a scam in it." -olde dude

    I did. The question stands on its own as a legitimate question that I was sincerely hoping to get an answer to. Whether Hate wants to use my other comments to obfuscate having to answer it or not.



  16. by HatetheSwamp on July 10, 2024 11:37 am

    po,

    I sincerely believe that I answered your question adequately...

    ...and I invited you to continue the discussion if my answer was inadequate.

    Please. Continue the discussion if you think my answer is inadequate.


  17. by Ponderer on July 10, 2024 12:41 pm

    Yeah, thanks, Bill. You gave me enough to adequately research a bit without having to deal with the cavalcade of obfuscation that accompanies your "answers".

    👍



  18. by HatetheSwamp on July 10, 2024 12:53 pm

    So, my answer was adequate and helpful. Glad to he'p.


  19. by Ponderer on July 10, 2024 2:24 pm

    If you need that. Sure.


  20. by oldedude on July 10, 2024 10:10 pm
    Whether Hate wants to use my other comments to obfuscate having to answer it or not...

    You gave me enough to adequately research a bit without having to deal with the cavalcade of obfuscation that accompanies your "answers"...

    If you need that. Sure."


    I don't think Lead gave you anything but what you made up. The flip side of that is that this is much like TAFKAP. It's a continual fight. Not picking sides on this.


  21. by oldedude on July 10, 2024 10:14 pm
    po- I tried to give you a real answer on this and you chose to omit it in favour of an argument. That's on you.


  22. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 2:58 am

    po's been doing this for years. Sad. I gave po the benefit of the doubt and gave an informed answer... and offered a more detailed dialog.

    And, po went bonkers, as you observed.


  23. by oldedude on July 11, 2024 6:03 am
    And I learned something in the process😀, which isn't a bad thing at all. And it is actually something I had wondered about since we have Jewish and Muslim friends. And of course, as the grandkids (and the adults) grow up, it's nice to be able to explain the differences to them.


  24. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 6:33 am

    OD,

    po made me feel... for the gazillionth time... that po is Lucy and ole pb is Charlie Brown. po's holding the football and, well, as Joe Biden said, "you know the thing."

    View Video


  25. by Donna on July 11, 2024 7:04 am

    One of the main differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is that Protestant denominations base their belief systems on Bible scripture, while some of the Catholic church's practices and laws were made post-Biblically and/or have no Biblical basis, e.g. refraining from eating meat other than fish on Fridays, paying money to the church to lessen a loved one's soul's time in purgatory, a place which isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible. When Martin Luther was a Catholic monk, he made a list of 95 Catholic practices that he didn't agree with and/or have no scriptural basis and nailed them to the front door of a Catholic church in Germany.

    Btw, I think it's hypocritical for Christians to make such a big deal out of the Ten Commandments when they themselves don't even try to follow all of them nor do they even believe that that's important.


  26. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 7:21 am

    Donna,

    Your account of Luther's 95 Theses is mostly accurate.

    Now, how do Christians make "such a big deal out of the Ten Commandments?"


  27. by Donna on July 11, 2024 7:45 am

    I guess the new Oklahoma law requiring all classrooms to display the Ten Commandments never happened then.

    Of course as a Lutheran, we were taught a great deal about Martin Luther in Sunday School and Confirmation class.


  28. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 8:02 am

    I said that your 95 Theses thing is mostly correct.

    The Oklahoma Ten Commandments thing probably will happen but it's not a CHRISTIAN thing. It's a Civil Religion thing. Even the supporters of the Oklahoma law say that.


  29. by Ponderer on July 11, 2024 8:13 am

    "Now, how do Christians make "such a big deal out of the Ten Commandments?"" -Hate





    🙄





    Um... by their Christian legislators MANDATING that they be posted in all public school classrooms maybe...?




  30. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 8:33 am

    po. The Ten Commandments ain't a Christian thing. The Ten Commandments are a part of the Hebrew Torah. Louisiana ain't putting up Beatitudes posters, or Lord's Prayer posters... because this ain't about Christianity. It's about blending state and religion.

    But,...

    Go ahead. Be phobic. Be angry. Have at it.

    Please.


  31. by Ponderer on July 11, 2024 8:35 am

    "Where do you get your "news?"" -Hate

    Well in this case, from the whorse's mouth itself:


    "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient."

    -MAGA Hat Majority of the Supreme Court


    You would have to be absolutely and totally ignorant of who Trump is and how he has behaved over many years not to logically conclude that he will take that ruling and wave it as a flag while committing any flagrant felonies, high crimes, and/or misdemeanors he wants to. No matter how ludicrously ridiculous the idea is that any particular part of his crime could ever be considered "official actions" as president and he was only "exercising his core constitutional powers", he'll claim immunity. Jesus God, he's already got his lawyers working on saying that his attempting to overthrow a free and fair election was legitimately part of his presidential actions!

    For fucksake, Bill. Such bullshit twisting and contorting of law has even been standard MAGA Republican operating procedure for ages. Trump's just always done it and will likely continue to do it on steroids.

    And now he's got his Supreme Court feeding him the steroids. The whole fuckingcountry is doomed.






  32. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 8:41 am

    Your quote from the Supreme Court decision doesn't say what you claim it says.

    ...the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some (freakin friggin EFFIN)immunity from criminal prosecution...


  33. by Curt_Anderson on July 11, 2024 9:19 am
    Donna,
    That was interesting about the practices and teachings that are NOT in the Bible, such as purgatory, etc. It makes me mad when I think about all the money I’ve wasted buying indulgences from the church!


  34. by Donna on July 11, 2024 9:23 am

    Indulgence - that's the term I couldn't think of.




  35. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 9:30 am

    Curt,

    If you want a few more, I still have a some tucked away in my storage unit. I'll give you a nice price.


  36. by Curt_Anderson on July 11, 2024 9:37 am
    HtS, thanks for the offer, but I’ll pass. You might try selling them on eBay. 44 years ago I read a good book on the topic of the medieval church called “pillars of the Earth“ by Ken Follett. That might be where I was introduced to the concept of indulgences.


  37. by oldedude on July 11, 2024 9:41 am
    Lead- well stated regarding Charlie Brown and Lucy.

    Donna & Lead. When talking theology, I'm not as up to date as you two. So be nice if I say something that is really whacked. I do remember learning as a Methodist through High School, then converted.

    As far as catholic practices go. You have to remember that most of the years of the church, the only people that could read were the priests. The lay person couldn't read the bible in their own language, much less in Latin. The saints were a means for the peasants to understand that since they weren't "allowed" to talk to "the" God, it was an intermediary they could get strengths from. Also remember this was also a "transition" time from the polytheistic religions (everywhere the Romans had taken over) to the monotheistic Christianity.

    I don't know anything about Luther's 95 Theses, so I'll read any discussion on that just to learn.


  38. by Donna on July 11, 2024 9:48 am

    You're correct on what you wrote, od.


  39. by Ponderer on July 11, 2024 9:52 am

    "Your quote from the Supreme Court decision doesn't say what you claim it says." -Hate

    That post was meant for another thread. But my point still stands firmly rooted in reality.

    I didn't say what their ruling says. I was talking about what they did with that ruling. Regardless of what it says, I'm talking about what Trump will now feel free to do with it. And whothefuck is gonna stop him now?

    Come on. You know Trump. Do you think for a second that he will take that inch they gave him and not make as many miles out of it as he can possibly can? He will follow the exact pattern that I laid out and that he has followed for many years.

    And those fuckingmotherfuckers knew exactly what they were doing when they made that ruling the way they did. They klnow exactly what he will do with it.



  40. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 10:30 am

    I'm talking about what Trump will now feel free to do with it. And whothefuck is gonna stop him now?

    You and your delusions of omniscience again.

    Who'll stop him?

    This is a constitutional republic. "Of the people, by the people and for the people," baby! Most of his 017 Executive Orders were opposed in court and stymied for a looooooooong, looooooooong time, po!

    ----------------

    Let me start off with two words. I support Biden. I support Biden. However,...

    I've gotten to the point that I'm tempted to root for the Orange Turd to win so I can tell you that I told you so.


  41. by Ponderer on July 11, 2024 11:02 am
    "Most of his 017 Executive Orders were opposed in court and stymied for a looooooooong, looooooooong time, po!" -Hate


    And...?

    What do you think happens with any court case he has in future when he insists on taking it to his Supreme Whores? Every lower court could make the most obvious rulings against him and he'll just keep appealing until he gets it overturned by hismotherfucking SS appointees.


  42. by HatetheSwamp on July 11, 2024 11:40 am

    po,

    Fact;

    Despite what your metaphorical Rachel is telling you, the Supreme Court decided against Trump in the immunity case.

    Truth.


  43. by Indy! on July 11, 2024 1:39 pm
    Donna: Tithing has not been a thing for eons and a lot of religions did it.


  44. by Donna on July 11, 2024 1:43 pm

    Okay, true, but why are you talking about tithing?


  45. by Indy! on July 11, 2024 6:11 pm
    Donna: Tithing has not been a thing for eons and a lot of religions did it.


  46. by Indy! on July 12, 2024 12:07 am
    …And Shirley Bassey’s Goldfinger is the best Bond song.


  47. by HatetheSwamp on July 12, 2024 4:45 am

    Curt,

    Pillars of the Earth was a great book. If you're interested, he followed it up and it's the first book in a trilogy.

    My sense of it is that it's a fairly accurate historical novel but that's my area of history.


  48. by Donna on July 12, 2024 7:26 am

    I don't understand what tithing has to do with anything I said.


  49. by Ponderer on July 12, 2024 7:35 am

    Plus tithing still goes on. I had a boss back in the aughts whose church required it. He couldn't have been happier about it.


  50. by Donna on July 12, 2024 7:43 am

    The practice of tithing is described in the Old Testament. A man at our church used to do it. But what does it have to do with the discussion we were having?



  51. by HatetheSwamp on July 12, 2024 7:52 am

    We do it but not to the institutional church. That $500 we offered a whiles back...

    BTW, Jesus appears to endorse tithing in Matt 23:23.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Quick religious question..."


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page