ding dong the witch is dead
what version do you have?
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 940
From: SoCal
Anyways... the details don't matter. Even if the bible says "thou shall not kill" christians are all for capitol punishment. Bible says no tattoos christians get sleeves. I just think it is funny.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,766
From: Orange County, CA
LET ME PUT IT INTO A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
THE VERSE IS LEVITICUS 19:28, IT SAYS " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD ."
THE TIMES THAT THIS WAS WRITTEN PEOPLE IN SURROUNDING CULTURES (PAGAN) WOULD CUT AND TATTOO THEMSELVES FOR THE DEAD, AND TO GAIN FAVOR WITH PAGAN gODS. GOD DID NOT WANT HIS PEOPLE TO BE CONFUSED WITH EVERYDAY SOCIETY SO HE DID NOT WANT THEM TO TATTOO THEMSELVES. NOW, WE CAN NOT PICK JUST ONE VERSE OUT OF THE BIBLE AND NOT LOOK AT WHAT SURROUNDS IT. PLEASE READ THE EXCEPT BELOW AND I'LL COMMENT MORE BELOW THIS:
LEVITICUS 19: 19-28
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD . 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.
23 " 'When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. [2] For three years you are to consider it forbidden [3] ; it must not be eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD . 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.
26 " 'Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
" 'Do not practice divination or sorcery.
27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD . (verse copy/pasted from bible.com)
IF WE LOOK AT THE EXCERPT WE SEE THAT A MAN CAN NOT SHAVE HIS BEARD, EAT HIS FRUIT FROM A TREE HE PLANTS FOR FOUR YEARS, PLANT TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF PLANTS IN HIS GARDEN, OR WEAR CLOTHING MADE FROM TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF CLOTH. SO GUESS WHAT, YOUR POLYESTER BLEND SHIRT AND SHAVED FACE WILL SEND YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL(which i know, you don't believe in)! LOL
THESE LAWS WERE INTENDED TO HELP THE PEOPLE GROW AND TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE FROM THE GENTILES. IN OLD DAYS YOU COULD PICK OUT A JEW BY THE WAY THEY DRESSED, SPOKE, AND ATE. THE LAWS FOR FARMING WERE WRITTEN TO MAKE THEIR HARVEST LARGER. BACK THEN THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE NOW AND THEY NEEDED GUIDANCE.
WHEN CHRIST CAME HE FULFILLED THE OLD LAW AND MADE IT OBSOLETE MORE OR LESS, NO ONE COULD LIVE UP TO THE LAW SO GOD PROVIDED A SACRIFICE THAT WOULD ATONE FOR ALL SINS. THE SACRIFICE WAS HIMSELF.
PUT THIS WAY, DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE? I HOPE SO...
THE VERSE IS LEVITICUS 19:28, IT SAYS " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD ."
THE TIMES THAT THIS WAS WRITTEN PEOPLE IN SURROUNDING CULTURES (PAGAN) WOULD CUT AND TATTOO THEMSELVES FOR THE DEAD, AND TO GAIN FAVOR WITH PAGAN gODS. GOD DID NOT WANT HIS PEOPLE TO BE CONFUSED WITH EVERYDAY SOCIETY SO HE DID NOT WANT THEM TO TATTOO THEMSELVES. NOW, WE CAN NOT PICK JUST ONE VERSE OUT OF THE BIBLE AND NOT LOOK AT WHAT SURROUNDS IT. PLEASE READ THE EXCEPT BELOW AND I'LL COMMENT MORE BELOW THIS:
LEVITICUS 19: 19-28
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD . 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.
23 " 'When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. [2] For three years you are to consider it forbidden [3] ; it must not be eaten. 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD . 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.
26 " 'Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
" 'Do not practice divination or sorcery.
27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD . (verse copy/pasted from bible.com)
IF WE LOOK AT THE EXCERPT WE SEE THAT A MAN CAN NOT SHAVE HIS BEARD, EAT HIS FRUIT FROM A TREE HE PLANTS FOR FOUR YEARS, PLANT TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF PLANTS IN HIS GARDEN, OR WEAR CLOTHING MADE FROM TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF CLOTH. SO GUESS WHAT, YOUR POLYESTER BLEND SHIRT AND SHAVED FACE WILL SEND YOU STRAIGHT TO HELL(which i know, you don't believe in)! LOL
THESE LAWS WERE INTENDED TO HELP THE PEOPLE GROW AND TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE FROM THE GENTILES. IN OLD DAYS YOU COULD PICK OUT A JEW BY THE WAY THEY DRESSED, SPOKE, AND ATE. THE LAWS FOR FARMING WERE WRITTEN TO MAKE THEIR HARVEST LARGER. BACK THEN THE PEOPLE DID NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE NOW AND THEY NEEDED GUIDANCE.
WHEN CHRIST CAME HE FULFILLED THE OLD LAW AND MADE IT OBSOLETE MORE OR LESS, NO ONE COULD LIVE UP TO THE LAW SO GOD PROVIDED A SACRIFICE THAT WOULD ATONE FOR ALL SINS. THE SACRIFICE WAS HIMSELF.
PUT THIS WAY, DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE? I HOPE SO...
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 988
From: NW Chicago
Originally Posted by xdorkx
27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Oh and the one about not eating meat with blood still in it... I'm pretty sure that's just a health concern. Reduces the risk of food poisoning.
But now that you mention it, you might want to put that analysis into the rest of the bible like the gnostics do. "Turning the cheek" is my favorite modern misinterpretation. I can elaborate if you wish.
Oh and even with your explanation, tattooing yourself is still a sin. Just because you don't hear about pagans tattooing themselves to appease their gods doesn't mean you now get to tattoo and cut yourself.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,766
From: Orange County, CA
Christ abolished the old testemant, we are no longer bound by those laws. If we were, it would be just as much of a sin for me to shave my face, as it was for me to get tattooed....
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 761
From: WNC
Christ abolished the Mosaic Law. Not the old testament. Wow. So, the old testament dosen't matter anymore?
Thats sad when you hear the from a "Christian". So one of the 10 commandments was to not kill your fellow man, but thats not relevant anymore? Christ ALWAYS spoke of the old testament. Where do you get your info from? "The bible for idiots" by Billy Graham?
Thats sad when you hear the from a "Christian". So one of the 10 commandments was to not kill your fellow man, but thats not relevant anymore? Christ ALWAYS spoke of the old testament. Where do you get your info from? "The bible for idiots" by Billy Graham?
Thread Starter
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,703
don''t worry about being alone in hell guys, i'll be there too 
watch this
http://funhouse.bubble.ro/868/Worst_Dad_in_the_World/
watch this
http://funhouse.bubble.ro/868/Worst_Dad_in_the_World/
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,766
From: Orange County, CA
Originally Posted by krustytheclown
What about premarital sex? Is that not a sin anymore? Homosexuality? Fornicating?
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,766
From: Orange County, CA
Originally Posted by krustytheclown
Christ abolished the Mosaic Law. Not the old testament. Wow. So, the old testament dosen't matter anymore?
Thats sad when you hear the from a "Christian". So one of the 10 commandments was to not kill your fellow man, but thats not relevant anymore? Christ ALWAYS spoke of the old testament. Where do you get your info from? "The bible for idiots" by Billy Graham?
Thats sad when you hear the from a "Christian". So one of the 10 commandments was to not kill your fellow man, but thats not relevant anymore? Christ ALWAYS spoke of the old testament. Where do you get your info from? "The bible for idiots" by Billy Graham?
Wow, why the hostility? Well at least i can say my church hasn't falsely prophesied the return of Christ numerous times (cough-jw's-cough)
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,457
From: Earth
My thoughts on religion have already been made in another thread, but I did want to say this:
I dont believe in hell. but Im willing to make an exception in Falwells case. Hate monger, bigot, liar, thief, con artist, rable rouser and all around EVIL man.
I dont believe in hell. but Im willing to make an exception in Falwells case. Hate monger, bigot, liar, thief, con artist, rable rouser and all around EVIL man.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 761
From: WNC
You better get your anti-JW info right buddy. The Society (The governing body of Jehovah's witnesses, who are in charge of printing bibles, and bible-aids) have NEVER, I repeat NEVER prophesied the return of christ by saying it will happen in (insert year hear). Another FALSE bit of info dug up by a apostate JW website huh? Or your pastor that dosen't care about the old testament? Or your retarded ideas? Damn Straight Im hostile. I dont appreciate any FALSE claims about my religion.
From the Proclaimers book (Pretty much a official history book of JW's)
At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’
In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation.
So your website/pastor/brother/friend who hates witnesses needs to get their facts straight! Dont EVEN get me started on Christianity buddy. Thats a fight you do not want. Trust me. Shoot, forget that, lets do it. What specific domination are you? Lets go.
Has your church/members ever participated in wars? Do Jehovah's Witnesses? No. Yours? Definetly.
‘But does not the Bible teach that Christ actually died on a cross?’ one may ask. To answer this, we must look into the meanings of the two Greek words that the Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Christ’s death: stau·ros′ and xy′lon.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979) states under the heading “Cross”: “Originally Gk. staurós designated a pointed, vertical wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground. . . . They were positioned side by side in rows to form fencing or defensive palisades around settlements, or singly they were set up as instruments of torture on which serious offenders of law were publicly suspended to die (or, if already killed, to have their corpses thoroughly dishonored).”
True, the Romans did use an instrument of execution known in Latin as the crux. And in translating the Bible into Latin, this word crux was used as a rendering of stau·ros′. Because the Latin word crux and the English word cross are similar, many mistakenly assume that a crux was necessarily a stake with a crossbeam. However, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part.”
The book The Non-Christian Cross adds: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros [pole or stake]; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross.” Christ could well have been impaled on a form of crux (stau·ros′) known as the crux simplex. That was how such a stake was illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius of the 16th century.
What of the other Greek word, xy′lon? It was used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible at Ezra 6:11. In the New World Translation this reads: “And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.” Clearly, a single beam, or “timber,” was involved here.
Numerous translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) therefore translate Peter’s words at Acts 5:30 to read: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew, hanging him upon a stake [or, “tree,” according to the King James Version, New International Version, The Jerusalem Bible, and Revised Standard Version].” You might also wish to check how your Bible translates xy′lon at: Acts 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; and 1 Peter 2:24.
Even after considering such evidence that Christ really died on a stake, some may still see nothing wrong with wearing a cross. ‘It’s just an ornament,’ they may say.
Bear in mind, though, how the cross has been used down through history—as an object of pagan worship and of superstitious awe. Could wearing a cross, even as just an ornament, be harmonized with the admonition of the apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 10:14: “Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry”?
What about true Christians today? They, too, should be conscious of the need to ‘guard themselves from idols,’ as the Bible counsels. (1 John 5:21) So they do not find the cross to be an appropriate ornament. They recall Paul’s statement: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake,” and therefore prefer to think of Christ as a glorious enthroned King!—Galatians 3:13; Revelation 6:2.
Though such Christians do not wear crosses, they deeply appreciate the fact that Christ died for them. They know that Christ’s sacrifice is a marvelous demonstration of “God’s power” and eternal love. (1 Corinthians 1:18; John 3:16) But they need no material object like a cross to help them worship this God of love. For, as Paul exhorted, they “are walking by faith, not by sight.”—2 Corinthians 5:7.
From the Proclaimers book (Pretty much a official history book of JW's)
At the convention held in Baltimore, Maryland, F. W. Franz gave the concluding talk. He began by saying: “Just before I got on the platform a young man came to me and said, ‘Say, what does this 1975 mean?’” Brother Franz then referred to the many questions that had arisen as to whether the material in the new book meant that by 1975 Armageddon would be finished, and Satan would be bound. He stated, in essence: ‘It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.’
In the years following 1966, many of Jehovah’s Witnesses acted in harmony with the spirit of that counsel. However, other statements were published on this subject, and some were likely more definite than advisable. This was acknowledged in The Watchtower of March 15, 1980 (page 17). But Jehovah’s Witnesses were also cautioned to concentrate mainly on doing Jehovah’s will and not to be swept up by dates and expectations of an early salvation.
So your website/pastor/brother/friend who hates witnesses needs to get their facts straight! Dont EVEN get me started on Christianity buddy. Thats a fight you do not want. Trust me. Shoot, forget that, lets do it. What specific domination are you? Lets go.
Has your church/members ever participated in wars? Do Jehovah's Witnesses? No. Yours? Definetly.
‘But does not the Bible teach that Christ actually died on a cross?’ one may ask. To answer this, we must look into the meanings of the two Greek words that the Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Christ’s death: stau·ros′ and xy′lon.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979) states under the heading “Cross”: “Originally Gk. staurós designated a pointed, vertical wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground. . . . They were positioned side by side in rows to form fencing or defensive palisades around settlements, or singly they were set up as instruments of torture on which serious offenders of law were publicly suspended to die (or, if already killed, to have their corpses thoroughly dishonored).”
True, the Romans did use an instrument of execution known in Latin as the crux. And in translating the Bible into Latin, this word crux was used as a rendering of stau·ros′. Because the Latin word crux and the English word cross are similar, many mistakenly assume that a crux was necessarily a stake with a crossbeam. However, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part.”
The book The Non-Christian Cross adds: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros [pole or stake]; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross.” Christ could well have been impaled on a form of crux (stau·ros′) known as the crux simplex. That was how such a stake was illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius of the 16th century.
What of the other Greek word, xy′lon? It was used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible at Ezra 6:11. In the New World Translation this reads: “And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.” Clearly, a single beam, or “timber,” was involved here.
Numerous translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) therefore translate Peter’s words at Acts 5:30 to read: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew, hanging him upon a stake [or, “tree,” according to the King James Version, New International Version, The Jerusalem Bible, and Revised Standard Version].” You might also wish to check how your Bible translates xy′lon at: Acts 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; and 1 Peter 2:24.
Even after considering such evidence that Christ really died on a stake, some may still see nothing wrong with wearing a cross. ‘It’s just an ornament,’ they may say.
Bear in mind, though, how the cross has been used down through history—as an object of pagan worship and of superstitious awe. Could wearing a cross, even as just an ornament, be harmonized with the admonition of the apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 10:14: “Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry”?
What about true Christians today? They, too, should be conscious of the need to ‘guard themselves from idols,’ as the Bible counsels. (1 John 5:21) So they do not find the cross to be an appropriate ornament. They recall Paul’s statement: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake,” and therefore prefer to think of Christ as a glorious enthroned King!—Galatians 3:13; Revelation 6:2.
Though such Christians do not wear crosses, they deeply appreciate the fact that Christ died for them. They know that Christ’s sacrifice is a marvelous demonstration of “God’s power” and eternal love. (1 Corinthians 1:18; John 3:16) But they need no material object like a cross to help them worship this God of love. For, as Paul exhorted, they “are walking by faith, not by sight.”—2 Corinthians 5:7.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 698
Originally Posted by krustytheclown
One of my main problems with "christianity" is that when a baby or young kid dies, they say that God needed another angel in Heaven. How moronic/contradictory is that? He created the Universe, but needs your little kid as a angel, and takes him away from you. Every time I hear that moronic idea spew out of someones mouth, I cringe. That ____es me off so much.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,409
From: Redneck Riveria
that is simply one of the stupididst things i have ever heard.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 698
Originally Posted by seattledave
Originally Posted by nameless_ak
God set everything up how sin works yes, but he gave us free will adam sinned causing the fall of mankind, that is why jesus had to die, because adam sinned because of that people couldnt have a relationship with God except going into the holy of holies, God wanted us to have that relatioship again, the only way to accomplish thats was Jesus, it is part of how things were set up, the "rules". is this making sense to you? mabey i could pm you later when i have more time.
I don't understand why jesus had to die. God did have a very very close relationship with people, even wicked non-holy people like King David, who was well before jesus.
Since you know the bible, you know your god had relationships with people, good and bad, holy and unholy already in the bible, so why did jesus have to die?
Is it because god made this game where "usually" some people (because some sins, like king david's did not always get a sacrifice) have to kill an animal to get god to forgive them, and because of god's rule that he follow himself only most of the time, that jesus made a deal with god? or satan? to be the one to die for the rest of humanituy's sins?
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 761
From: WNC
Nameless ak, Did you read what I said? Are you agreeing with me or ?? I know he dosen't kill babies. There is nothing us pathetic humans can do for him that he cant do himself.
Dork,
I guess I should say, that a year was suggested, but in the next sentence, the idea that NO one (except God) know when the end will come. Speculation is just that, Speculation. It does no good, only gets peoples hope up. Next time though, get your facts straight. Do you mean 1914? If that was what you are talking about, let me know.
Dork,
I guess I should say, that a year was suggested, but in the next sentence, the idea that NO one (except God) know when the end will come. Speculation is just that, Speculation. It does no good, only gets peoples hope up. Next time though, get your facts straight. Do you mean 1914? If that was what you are talking about, let me know.
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 698
[quote="scionofPCFL"]
It's amazing the stupid things one can hear when someone is trying to explain everyday occurances and natural phenomena in biblical terms.[/quote
what r utalking about
that is simply one of the stupididst things i have ever heard.
what r utalking about
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 698
Originally Posted by krustytheclown
Nameless ak, Did you read what I said? Are you agreeing with me or ?? I know he dosen't kill babies. There is nothing us pathetic humans can do for him that he cant do himself.