Naziyr

Well let's all be fair... I assume he simply thought she was trying to be judgemental, and responded as one who was wounded. I've seen alot of people here do that, so I don't think we should be jumping on the bandwagon on this one. But rather we should see that human nature gave that response, and perhaps not pointer himself. I mean come on. What if you were in a debate and someone posted that? Wouldn't you assume they were being judgemental and trying to use scripture against you? What would have been your response? Would it have been so different than Pointer's? Shalom

No pointer, she is bearing Judgement. The same as others who have come to this thread. We are in agreement as a body of believers, and bear whitness and judge that the little debate you and shiloh have should cease, or be moved elsewhere. This is not because the debate is invalid, but because it seems to be more aggression based than objective. Being that it's more or less "you're a fool" "no YOU are the fool"... The morality and origin of Torah is linked to it's validity in moral standards and judgement as divine revelation of G-d, but this isn't a thread about proving the origin and morality of Torah to be true. Both parties should submit their evidence, whether Torah or not, and move on to another debate about said subject outside of this one if their material is challenged beyond the scope of this current subject. I myself was a bit disturbed that I had to wade through three or more pages of "I'm right" "no I'm right" just to get back to the issue at hand. Besides... I believe everyone in this thread is fully soaked from the testosterone shower thank-you-very-much. Shalom

I agree with you Mike, about people having a job to WORK and not to GET A PAYCHECK. Scripture says time and time again that the Lazy man is cursed, and that one who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel." 1 Timothy 5:8 This in reference to lazy men who let their families starve, not disabled people btw. In Texas, we have a system where someone doesn't get paid until the Job is done... but this is like in small towns where corporate law doesn't overrule common sense. IF you don't do the work required of you to get paid, why should you be paid? Lol Shalom

"Did you know that the Bible has more scriptures on money than it does on love? True." Mmm no. Many of the Torah commandments are to teach us "how to love our neighbor" and "how to love G-d". "Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been generated from G-d. And everyone who loves Him who begets also loves the one who has been born of Him. By this we know that we love the children of G-d: when we love G-d and keep His commandments. For this is the love of G-d, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not heavy." 1 John 5:1-3 Shalom

Provision and riches.. When scriptures speak of provision, it doesn't mean "abundance". To "provide" for a basic essential is to "satisfy" that essential. G-d gave the Children of Israel provision through Mana, but their own dissatisfaction for lack of meat made them cry out for G-d to give them meat. Though the Mana was sufficient and had a good flavor to it, eventually the Children of Israel got tired of having the same ol' thing everyday. So they wanted more. This is where I think one should take time and look at the "Blessing" they have of "provision" in that all their bills are "provided for". The author of proverbs states repeatidly that moderation is good, but excess corrupts a man (alcohol, money), so he wouldn't be writting here that some excess is okay (as ecclesiastes makes note that material things do not make a man truly happy, nor is excess good for the Soul). So what does "rich" mean here? Does G-d only bless according to material possessions? Does Proverbs 10:22 mean "I will bless your pocketbook and then you will be happy!"? Certainly not. Shalom

Have any scripture to back your stance floatingaxe? Shalom

Ah yes, Camp cleanliness... lol. Well considering anything that touched the emission was unclean for a period, I don't think an army of thousands of Israelite Soldiers would defile the camp by masturbating in such a fashion. I have always understood the "digging tool for covering excrement" ordinance as bodily wastes. Men of war setting up new camps had to have designated places as restrooms, to avoid disease and sickness in the camp. We see this with our modern day army, and foreign armies. And I think a few on here know all too well "latrine duty" lol! The camp ordinance I have see, and have been taught from rabbinical tradition, to be as "bodily wastes" and not semenal emmitions, because as I stated before, anything touching the semenal emission would be unclean for a time. Anything touching that object would be rendered unclean themselves for the day. So allowing soldiers to render themselves unclean in the field does not make much sense to me. Of note, the act we're both talking about (the one concerning covering the stuff in question), should it be seen as "bodily wastes", would be ceremonially okay because using the restroom does not render one unclean. But as I stated before, being exposed to outter semen makes the person, and the object touching it unclean. I dunno, but when I go camping with a bunch of men... I don't get the urge to um... ya. "scripture is quite clear that onan's sin was disobedience in regard to giving his brother a child. it was rebellion, even if it wasn't greed." Of course it was fundamentally an act of rebellion. If not against man, then against the nature of G-d (as the Commandments show). I was just having a problem with the greed issue is all. I agree that he was killed for rebellion. I think I am having the problem with the underlying message and tradition in it. Even of Onan gave an heir, the heir by Law would have "firstborn" rights, even if it is the seed of another. Meh Shalom

I'm gonna re-read through it tonight for a refresher. (haven't studied Hosea in a few months). Be back later when I am done! (On a side note, it could mean "Idolatry" in the place of "Harlotry" ) Shalom

I'm sooooooooooooo glad chocolate is Kosher. Yum yum yum Shalom

the sin of Onan was not masturbation, nor was it (in general) about birth control. the reason Onan was struck down was because he was defiant about the law requiring him to provide his deceased brother an heir to his inheritance by taking his sister-in-law as a wife. his sin was GREED, and that sin was carried out in the manner of refusing to produce an heir that would recieve a portion of his property. Incorrect. Though the seed was to be given in the place of the dead Brother, it is more representational than anything else. The child born of the surviving brother would hold claim to BOTH estates (deceased brother, and living brother), so it was in the father's best interest to give an heir. Now this is spoken of in the majority, among Christians as they do not understand the custom. He wasn't struck down because of disobedience to the Law, or even disobedience to his Father. If disobedience to the Law required immediate death, then many more of the patriarchs would have died long before their time. onan was a specific person who was specifically required to impregnate someone on behalf of another. it is an incorrect assumption that 'spilling seed', or preventing sperm from reaching the egg is in itself a sin. it was a sin in THIS instance with THIS individual because of his motivation and his rebellion. No, when the seed is spilled, both male and female become defiled in that they are both rendered unclean by having contact with a semenal emission (review Law of the seed, nocturnal emissions, etc. etc.). Modern science shows that the main bulk of semenal emission isn't the only thing that can render a woman pregnant. The pre-semenal emission is ALSO capable of impregnating a woman. Additionally, there's over 2000 years of Jewish teaching (the original holders of the Torah) that shows this form of birth control as sinful. Why is it that only recently people are trying to equate it with "greed" and whatnot and so forth? Especially considering that even IF he made a child 10 years down the road, it would STILL bear his brother's name? It wasn't a matter of greed at all. now, since naziyr brought up the other so-called sin that the Bible is silent on, masturbation, let me go ahead and cover ground in that arena also. the act itself is not sinful... however, it can become sinful under certain circumstances. for instance, if a man is married, and is denying his wife pleasure in order to satisfy himself, that is a sin. also, if a man is having lustful thoughts and fantasies about someone else whom he is not married to, the thoughts are sinful and the act is tainted. likewise, the same is true for women in those circumstances. if a woman denies her husband her body in order to satisfy herself, or if she's having lustful thoughts of someone she is not married to, she sins. This is purely a Antinomian Christian concept. The Torah and over 2000 years of observance do not agree with this. Shalom

The Majority feel that the first ordinance is that the seed find it's place in the female reproductive organ. I do know of the uterine wall scenario, but this is under a different ordinace and a different topic: Abortion. The main focus is that the semen find it's place in the female reproductive organ. It's just fundamental in that it has to be there and nowhere else. Now according to abortion and so forth and what not, in the case of women who should not concieve do to medial problems, "abortion" is allowed, as it places the mother's life in danger. So the first immediate act of "not letting the egg attach" would be what would have to happen later on in the pregnancy. I myself don't think any abortion should be used, because while it is allowed, I don't think we should turn away a gift. Sarah the wife of Abraham would jump outta the grave and slap a few women if she knew they'd be WILLFULLY making themselves infertile. lol But there are many more commandments about this very topic. Shalom

In the NT church, we see that those who came to te knowledge of Christ sold their land and possessions and gave to a "community fund" in which all were able to prosper according to equal distribution of funds according to needs. Even the companions of Jesus gave their money to one man (judas) to hold and possess for the benifit of the group. We also see that the companions of Jesus, and Jesus himself didn't have the money to pay the tax demanded of them, so Jesus directed the disciple to go take a fish and look in it's mouth for the payment of taxes. I don't agree with Pastors having Large amounts of money, for: 1.) Money Corrupts 2.) There are those in the church who could use that money to pay their light bill, or buy food for their hungry family, instead of the pastor putting a down payment on a new luxary boat. 3.) There's no mention in the scriptures of a "wealthy pastor" or "elder" or anything like that as far as I know. When I see guys like benny hinn, and Joel Osteen making a "bigger" "better" building... it worries me. Lakewood Church spent over $80 Million Dollars to renovate and redecorate the Place their are leasing from the city (it's a sports arena). Now look at that number... 80 MILLION DOLLARS just to redecorate! What OTHER churches in the area could have used this? How many people could have been financially blessed from equal distribution of these funds? How many charities, youth help programs could have benefited from only a taste of that? But no... a bigger better church has to be built. After all, the Protestants have to keep up with the Catholics right? Poor poor small churches. Crushed under the weight of Temples to Mammon. Shalom

Not all forms of birth control are forbidden. (I dunno if this is okay to post? If not just delete it mods, and please forgive me!) Coming from a Jewish outlook on this, the main focus of sin in masturbation and some types of birth control, are the willful destruction of the "seed", which is sperm. We have an example of one man in the bible that willfully destroys his seed as a means of birth control, and this man is struck down dead by G-d. Now, what kinds of birth control are allowed? Think about that in this form of definition. Any form of birth control that inhibits the semen from reaching it's natural destination in intercourse is sinful. Under this definition, it could be "acts" of birthcontrol (not gonna describe this... here but remember the guy that got struck down lol), condoms, diaphrams, and vasectemys. Birth control pills or shots etc, are generally allowed (unless you're reaaally Orthodox) because it does not inhibit the semen from reaching it's natural place in the act of intercourse (the female reproductive organ). It merely makes the woman incapable of conceiving. Vasectemyes among fundamentalist circles, view this as "becoming a Eunich", in which Eunichs aren't allowed to marry the daughters of Israel, and are excluded from some functions in the assembly (in the time of old Israel). Vasectemys are also viewed as "disrupting the natural flow and destination of the seed". Both of these ordinances render this option impossible. Now, a woman having her tubes tied is viewed by the majority as being okay (unless you're reaaally Orthodox). This is because the natural flow is not disrupted. Now I must say that birth control is at times ESSENTIAL especially when the wife conceiving puts her health at risk. Anyways, to recap: Not all forms of birth control are forbidden. Forbidden: Condoms Diaphrams Vasectemys The "act" of birth control Using Spermicide (directly killing the seed) Allowed: Birth Control Pills Birth Control Shots Having one's tubes tied I don't think that's exhaustive, but I don't want to get too far into this and get like... in trouble. Any other things you may think the scriptures are silent on? Shalom

Our martyrdom is a Gift we give to the Savior, our precious King. But the gift... as it pertains to us is truly a gifting I believe. If you read reports of martyrs (which martyrdom isn't JUST dying, it's also persecution), you will see that these people are gifted with a supernatural... peace and calm when enduring martyrdoms. The average human being is not capable of being a martyr, nor is the faithless believer. At the first sign of persecution or possiblity of death, they are quick to take back their statement of faith. The believers that are of the martyrs are gifted in a way that we should all be gifted in, in that we have a gift of hope and security in our L-rd which compells us to give all, for who gave all for us. Is matyrdom a gift? Truly it is a gift to all those who believe, and a gift to the one whom our love is given. But in reference to the original post... it's good to be excited about martyrdom, for fundamentally we are to be continually martyrs in that we must die daily for Christ. So I'd encourage the brother to seek out ways he could pursue martyrdom in a healthy fashion. Remind him of what he has to give up to gain the fullness of Christ, and set him on that path of "dying daily". Shalom

Lol ID systems are widely being rejected by fundamentalist Christian movements everywhere. They see it as the "mark of the beast", but this is false. No one will be tricked into taking the mark. They will know FULL WELL what they are doing when they take the mark. Shalom