What fun is that???

Oh, yes, right -- I forgot. Fun.

Have at the poly-cotton blends. I'm really interested to see where this goes.

posted by Catlady:

Well okay--I think our next path should be the poly-cotton blends. If God says we shouldn't wear poly-cotton blends--I am good with that-I think they are a sin against nature (they do not biodegrade). I think the wearers of poly-cotton blends should be banished to a very hot place--where thier poly with give them rashes until they repent thier evil ways--and walk the path of the Lord--in natural fibers--that require ironing. Hallelujah!

Posted by Kateyes:

Thank you Kateyes -- well said!

Well, actually, since there wasn't polyester when Leviticus was written, it was wool-linen blends. (Aren't there wool-linen business suits today?). Why why why would this be a sin? Would the fibers shrink differently and make the garment pucker, throwing weeks of work out the window?

And what about planting two kinds of seed in a field? One might strangle the other?

Really, I am trying to find a reason for some of these laws. (Not to mention the admonition against men clipping the hair on the sides of their heads and their beards. I know Orthodox Jews follow this directive and have long tendrils curling down from the sides of their heads). Some of them seem to make sense, taken from a cultural perspective, but some of them -- like these -- do leave me scratching my head.

Depends on the original text. remember, you are reading a translation, written during the reign of one of the most flagrant homosexual monarchs in English history.

Perhaps it's the clerics of the day making a point against the King.

Didn't I mention earlier that it this goes back to the insurance lobby?

This is not just about mixing of materials it's about making sub standard garments or cheating the buyer who believes they're buying cotton or wool... The law was put in place as a detterent to keeping merchants from making junk and passing it off as good 100% wool. In other words a lie.

Agricultural law to keep different stronger plants from killing weaker plants, something farmers still do today. This isn't intended for the small home garden it's a common sense thing for farmers of large crops to plant similar items together. It makes it easier to harvest and since different plants use different nutrients the plants grow better.

This is perhaps a cultural law, probably to distinguish the Jews from other races. I don't know, and this is only a guess, but again it was cultural for the Jews at the time.

Umm ok what part of "Original" don't you get? See the King James is the English translation, but if you refer back to the Greek written 1400 years prior to the King James version, and prior to any points against the King, the text is the same. Pull up biblegateway and look up a verse in the original Greek translation. The words are out of place but the meaning is there.

Also if you want to go further back look at the original Hebrew text. Same thing, not written by King James' cleric, but the law is still there. It's not a translation thing it's a textual thing. Either way the text exists, so we must decide whether it was cultural, and only applicable to the Old Testament Jews or relavent to today and the New Testament Christians.

I for one feel that it's still relavent to today simply because it's not just in the OT it's also in the NT.

Believer:

Thanks for the perspective about the two kinds of cloth. Hadn't thought about that law being about substandard garments, since I consider linen and wool both fine fabrics. Good point though.Also about the planting.

So it seems these laws were so people could get along better, be honest with each other, find it easier to work the fields -- to reach their goals of a productive, growing, reproducing nation.

In that context, the homosexuality admonition makes sense, since it doesn't make more babies. However, today, when there are plenty of babies on this planet (to the point of overpopulation)I wonder if it is still valid. The same way that we know that if we cook pork thoroughly it is safe to eat, and that mixing fibers and fabrics can actually add valuable properties to the resulting garment. And that shellfish is ok for vast amounts of people to eat (I'm not one of them; I'm allergic).

You will probably say that God's word is always valid, no matter what the culture says -- and I would agree with you in the case of sleeping with family members, incest; adultery, etc. But is homosexuality in the "pork" category -- which wasn't a good idea to eat way back when people didn't know why eating it made them sick -- or the incest/adultery category, which is never a good idea? Seems like there is some discernment at work here.

How about this, how about we agree to disagree? We're both set in our ways on this topic, and neither is going to give any ground on it. In truth it doesn't matter one way or another to our, mine and your, salvation so let's just drop the subject.