Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jed Bartlett had some choice words about this as I recall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who say the Bible doesn't say unbaptized people go to Hell, explain this:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Where does that verse mention baptism?

Really?

You need to be baptized to fully accept Jesus, no? That's a big part of it, right?

So if you have to go through Jesus to get to God, it would stand to reason that you need to accept Jesus. Accepting Jesus requires baptism, right?

Where does the Bible say you need to be baptized to fully accept Jesus? In fact, where is the explanation of this verse? Anything could be "through Jesus."

Ok, sure.

But those who don't engage with Jesus at all--aka Jews, non-Christians--don't go to heaven, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who say the Bible doesn't say unbaptized people go to Hell, explain this:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Where does that verse mention baptism?

Really?

You need to be baptized to fully accept Jesus, no? That's a big part of it, right?

So if you have to go through Jesus to get to God, it would stand to reason that you need to accept Jesus. Accepting Jesus requires baptism, right?

Where does the Bible say you need to be baptized to fully accept Jesus? In fact, where is the explanation of this verse? Anything could be "through Jesus."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thought on this is that it's because those people are exploiting the Bible for their own political purposes. It's not politically useful for them to not eat shellfish or have rape victims marry their rapists, so they act as though those passages don't exist.

What political purpose? I do not think you are wrong, but can you give some examples?

See Pence, Mike.

PP here, but yes -- the immediate PP gave the answer I would have. These people are homophobic and are using the Bible to justify attacking gay people.

What is the attack? If you asked Mike Pence is stealing a sin, he'd say yes. If you asked him if gossip is a sin, he'd say yes. If you asked him is jealously is a sin, he'd say yes.

But Mike Pence thinks that gossips and jealous people deserve equal rights under the law. But he does not think gay people do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who say the Bible doesn't say unbaptized people go to Hell, explain this:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Where does that verse mention baptism?

Really?

You need to be baptized to fully accept Jesus, no? That's a big part of it, right?

So if you have to go through Jesus to get to God, it would stand to reason that you need to accept Jesus. Accepting Jesus requires baptism, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who say the Bible doesn't say unbaptized people go to Hell, explain this:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Where does that verse mention baptism?

Really?

You need to be baptized to fully accept Jesus, no? That's a big part of it, right?

So if you have to go through Jesus to get to God, it would stand to reason that you need to accept Jesus. Accepting Jesus requires baptism, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I understand that Acts is not cannon in Judaism, but the OP was asking about Christianity and why Christians don't follow all the Old Testament laws, so Acts would be relevant here.

Again, OP was not initially at all clear in that, and many follow on posts have ignored the quite different Jewish position. DCUM is a message board open to all, in a metro area with people of many different faiths. While its reasonable to assume that Hindus, Jains, pagans, etc are not much interested in someone discussing the Hebrew scriptures and their meaning, it is NOT reasonable in such a place to assume Jews are not. Whenever you discuss what you may call the "old" testament, in a "public" place, its a good idea to consider that Jews are listening and are impacted.

But I don't think the shrimp was an indication of that. The LORD told the Jewish people that if they followed all the laws, they would live long in the land the LORD was giving them. So I think PART of that was not eating shellfish where there was no refrigeration.

So you just eat them fresh, as lots of other peoples did, to generally no ill effect. Or ill effects offset by the added nutrition. There MAY be an explanation in that shellfish are scavengers, and scavenger species are looked on askance in the dietary laws - I think more of a broad sense of uncleanliness, a moral uncleanliness, than anything about health. But that is never a reason to forego following them - we are not supposed to look behind the law and judge Hashem's motivation which is unscrutable to us - instead we are to see that the law was given in love, and by following it, we reciprocate the love, and bring Him into our daily acts.

Why the lecture about the rules of discourse on here? The OP said she was trying to learn about Christianity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My honest thought on this is that it's because those people are exploiting the Bible for their own political purposes. It's not politically useful for them to not eat shellfish or have rape victims marry their rapists, so they act as though those passages don't exist.

What political purpose? I do not think you are wrong, but can you give some examples?

See Pence, Mike.

PP here, but yes -- the immediate PP gave the answer I would have. These people are homophobic and are using the Bible to justify attacking gay people.

What is the attack? If you asked Mike Pence is stealing a sin, he'd say yes. If you asked him if gossip is a sin, he'd say yes. If you asked him is jealously is a sin, he'd say yes.

Anonymous wrote:Jed Bartlett had some choice words about this as I recall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who say the Bible doesn't say unbaptized people go to Hell, explain this:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Where does that verse mention baptism?

Really?

You need to be baptized to fully accept Jesus, no? That's a big part of it, right?

So if you have to go through Jesus to get to God, it would stand to reason that you need to accept Jesus. Accepting Jesus requires baptism, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who say the Bible doesn't say unbaptized people go to Hell, explain this:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Where does that verse mention baptism?

Anonymous wrote:To the PPs who say the Bible doesn't say unbaptized people go to Hell, explain this:

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)

Anonymous wrote:

I understand that Acts is not cannon in Judaism, but the OP was asking about Christianity and why Christians don't follow all the Old Testament laws, so Acts would be relevant here.

Again, OP was not initially at all clear in that, and many follow on posts have ignored the quite different Jewish position. DCUM is a message board open to all, in a metro area with people of many different faiths. While its reasonable to assume that Hindus, Jains, pagans, etc are not much interested in someone discussing the Hebrew scriptures and their meaning, it is NOT reasonable in such a place to assume Jews are not. Whenever you discuss what you may call the "old" testament, in a "public" place, its a good idea to consider that Jews are listening and are impacted.

But I don't think the shrimp was an indication of that. The LORD told the Jewish people that if they followed all the laws, they would live long in the land the LORD was giving them. So I think PART of that was not eating shellfish where there was no refrigeration.

So you just eat them fresh, as lots of other peoples did, to generally no ill effect. Or ill effects offset by the added nutrition. There MAY be an explanation in that shellfish are scavengers, and scavenger species are looked on askance in the dietary laws - I think more of a broad sense of uncleanliness, a moral uncleanliness, than anything about health. But that is never a reason to forego following them - we are not supposed to look behind the law and judge Hashem's motivation which is unscrutable to us - instead we are to see that the law was given in love, and by following it, we reciprocate the love, and bring Him into our daily acts.