Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Alert

New, aggressive strain of HIV discovered in Cuba

Feb 16, 2015 6:49AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: relations
Feb 16, 2015 6:55AM PST

A relation with Cuba isn't so bad. But I would be careful when starting a relation with a Cuban homosexual, if you were considering that as something for your first Cuban holiday.

Kees

- Collapse -
I didn't know
Feb 16, 2015 6:57AM PST

it had to be a homosexual ?
Learn something new everyday ...

Digger

- Collapse -
coming true
Feb 17, 2015 12:00AM PST

just as I said before, that something with more aggressive HIV and quicker debilitation and death would come along eventually. God is longsuffering toward repentance, but even His tolerant patience in giving time for that repentance reaches an end.

- Collapse -
Have you given up on the Ebola Scenario?
Feb 17, 2015 12:08AM PST

Do you think man is "out-smarting" God?


Every "bad thing" that happens is Gods doing? Good people should have nothing to fear....When are you going to Cuba? There is no snow there.

Why would you care to quarantine people that have been to countries where Ebola has been detected...everyone that YOU know and care about is living under Gods wing and God would never give a good person Ebola?

- Collapse -
...or you could get accurate knowledge
Feb 17, 2015 8:50AM PST

about God...
Homosexuals are imprisoned in Cuba; that doesn't help the situation.

- Collapse -
are you advocating...
Feb 17, 2015 11:41AM PST

....a stronger penalty then?

- Collapse -
They get the death penalty, eventually.
Feb 18, 2015 6:51AM PST

Along with other criminals, like heterosexuals who have sex outside of marriage, and thieves, and those who are jealous of others, and habitual drunks, and those who take bribes...
But you know that, of course; you read the Bible, with all the understanding imparted by your teachers.
My post was to nudge Bill away from 'Gospel according to James D.' and into the real one. As you could see by his post, he needs that.
In college I would hear the gay students reviling the Fundamentalists for dumping on them, saying it wasn't Biblical. Even then I knew that wasn't true, but I didn't know why. I knew also that the others were condemned by scripture if not by the Fundamentalists (including a couple of my girlfriends).
Now I know the reasons and the reasoning; Jehovah is an equal-opportunity enforcer of his laws. Unlike man's governments, where homosexuality is criminalized by people who do just about everything else and prosper as a result. (Ps 83)
Say, speaking of government, won't it be nice here on the earth when God's is the standard? Mt 6:9,10

- Collapse -
What did Jesus say about homosexuals
Feb 18, 2015 11:05PM PST

or even the ten commandments?

- Collapse -
He didn't need to say anything
Feb 19, 2015 7:52AM PST

It had already been said, and written.

- Collapse -
In the Old Testament
Feb 20, 2015 1:25AM PST

Do you also want to make your daughter marry her rapist? How about two kinds of cloth woven together? What does it say about abortion? How about stoning your son if he talks back?

- Collapse -
About the two kinds of cloth...just so you know
Feb 20, 2015 1:43AM PST

because I know you've mentioned this before. The old Hebrew lacked in vocabulary. We have single words today that can represent paragraphs of that language. The subject being dealt with is impersonating someone of higher authority or (thought to be) greater importance. Today's equivalence might be someone donning a blue jacket and affixing a star to it similar to what a law officer would do. It has naught to do with how to weave other than the possibility that some textiles shrink and could make your outfit look tacky after a washing. Happy

- Collapse -
Steven, here's what the Jews today
Feb 21, 2015 11:20AM PST

have to say about it, taken from one of our publications, Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1 p. 483.
[quote] God's law to the people of Israel commanded: "You must not wear mixed stuff of wool and linen together." (De 22:11; see also Le 19:19.) Regarding this, the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1973, Vol. 14, col. 1213) remarked: "The clothing of the priests was notably exempt from the prohibition of sha'atnez [a garment of two sorts of thread, NWT]. Exodus 28:6, 8, 15 and 39:29 prescribe that various pieces be made of linen and colored wool interwoven...This suggests that the general prohibition was grounded on the taboo character of such a mixture, pertaining exclusively to the realm of the sacred." [end quote]
In other words, the same Law commanded the priests to make their garments in this way, and only they could do so.
I don't read Hebrew, as it's evident you do, so I can't address your comments about that language. It seems strange to me that the Creator of languages (Gen 11:7-9) would use an 'inferior' one to give instructions to his people.

- Collapse -
No...I don't read Hebrew
Feb 21, 2015 6:04PM PST

but it didn't stop me from liking Molly Picon. But in the simplest words of the interpretation, it has nothing to do with the "Ten Commandments" that the tread developed into. I cannot recall the exact place and time where I heard or read about the cloth weaving but I do remember a long discussion about the vocab deficiencies of the Hebrew language. Thus, "do not impersonate a police officer" could be stated such as "It is forbidden to wear a tailored suit of blue color with a metallic image of a heavenly light to the area of the heart upon its jacket piece". One would need to know that such an outfit was the sole right of the cops to wear. Happy

- Collapse -
Well...OK. Now I'm curious and cannot find
Feb 21, 2015 6:40PM PST

reference to the interpretation I heard long ago. It seems there are many thoughts behind the mixing of cloth and some sound reasonable while others don't. Another, that sounds reasonable, had to do with superstitions surrounding the mixing of just about anything. I'm still going with observation being the driving force behind many of the laws...and many weren't laws but strong suggestions. Since we know superstitions have often come from misinterpreted observations, we should certainly be able to use that knowledge to fulfill our understanding rather than to reject past behavior as being entirely faulty. We need to remember that scripture isn't a step-by-step living guide but a challenge to our thinking processes.

- Collapse -
I'm reminded also of Jesus statement
Feb 21, 2015 10:06PM PST

about patching and old garment with new cloth. I suspect that applies, same principle.

- Collapse -
The interpretations are all over the place
Feb 22, 2015 12:09AM PST

and the last one I read suggests the motive is unclear. It might have made sense to the Levites during that time but not have the same relevance in today's world. The underlying message, however, is not contained in the single passage but in the entire context of the it. Just as we shouldn't mingle those things that are not compatible or may produce undesirable results, we probably shouldn't disassemble that message.

- Collapse -
Steven, we have a CD-ROM that comes
Feb 24, 2015 2:17AM PST

out every year, with all our references, with the Watchtowers going back to 1950. The Insight book
came out some years ago and serves us like the Hastings or Imperial
Bible Dictionaries do for Protestants. I have those and others and I
can tell you ours is much more reliable.Notice the Jewish work
says, "This suggests that the general prohibition...",
and our editors concur. The Insight books are not online for you to
see what we know about the Hebrew language, but they're available in
the library of every Kingdom Hall. My own reasoning holds: "It
seems strange to me that the Creator of languages (Gen 11:7-9) would
use an 'inferior' one to give instructions to his people."
That's based on the language's long history and its use for the three
religions that are made up of People of the Book.
I can't agree
with a couple of your statements. "had to do with superstitions
surrounding the mixing of just about anything... and many weren't
laws but strong suggestions. "Jehovah's laws then and now are
not based on superstition, and the Law states its authority at almost
every paragraph. Example: In Leviticus 18 and 19 you'll find various
items explained ending with the statement "I am Jehovah."
Just because. Now that's magisterial, if not Magisterium.
As to the superstition, a prime example is the changing (not
translating) of Jehovah's name. The superstition- and it's called
that by many commentators- is on the part of the wayward Israelites.
That can be seen clearly at Ruth 2:4, KJV. "And, behold, Boaz
came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The LORD be with you.
And they answered him, The LORD bless thee." The introduction to
most Bibles says that LORD is a substitution for the name. (In my JPS
Tanakh it's often written ha'Shem- The Name.) So, substituting
backward, we see Boaz and his workers using the name itself,
respectfully, in casual conversation, and no lightning bolts or seven
days of cleansing. That's why our Bible and too few others read, '
"Just then Boaz arrived from Bethlehem and said to the
harvesters: "Jehovah be with you." And they replied: "Jehovah
bless you." '
For an illustration of how important this has been and will be, see Exodus 9:16 and Ezekiel 6:14
Something about the copy/paste where I am shortens the lines, and I don't have the time to fix it. Sorry.

- Collapse -
the LAW never made
Feb 20, 2015 7:03AM PST

anyone marry their rapist. I suppose you are speaking of consensual sex between teens? Consider this also, if your child won't respect his own godly parents, then doesn't he also pose a danger to others? There was a penalty given for anyone who caused a woman to "lose the fruit of her womb". Much of what was given back there was a "pattern" to teach, such as the tent in Shiloh, not wearing two different doctrines at the same time, or be two faced, etc. If you were told to not be two faced, can we assume you actually had two faces?

- Collapse -
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Feb 20, 2015 11:13PM PST

28If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

- Collapse -
bad translation
Feb 21, 2015 2:04AM PST

concentrate on this part;

"and they are discovered,"

means she was into it also.

- Collapse -
Diane, the requirement was for the man to marry
Feb 21, 2015 11:08AM PST

the woman, if she would have him. I suspect the option was there for the case of a couple whose mutual affection led them to isolate themselves and the man took advantage of it. If she said NO! (screaming recommended) then it was rape. (Just as it might be at any major American university.) Such a marriage would have a good chance of success, and the man could never divorce her afterward.
Did you read the scriptures I recommended to you, below? ("Jesus himself answered that.") If so, you'll recall that Christians are not under the Law. If not, then you probably can't use the information I have on mixing cloth, or on abortion and stoning, which are more important and more relevant to our day.

- Collapse -
I may be off base with the woven cloth thing
Feb 22, 2015 6:31AM PST

I know I've heard or read this but cannot find reliable references. It almost seems there's no universal agreement as to an exact interpretation. We live in a world where purity of fabric content is almost non-existent so, in the grand scheme, I doubt we need to toss out our entire wardrobes and learn to weave our own.

- Collapse -
As is written, we know but a small portion
Feb 20, 2015 1:36AM PST

of what Jesus said. I'd have to think that, had Jesus turned an old law upside down, it would have been noted. One thing Jesus did do was focus less on God's wrath and more on His love.

- Collapse -
he followed the Law
Feb 20, 2015 7:06AM PST

that's why it was fulfilled in Him. He was sent to the Jews first, then his disciples to the Gentiles later. He spent a lot of time pointing out their failures in how they addressed and used the Law.

- Collapse -
Actually he and his followers were constantly
Feb 20, 2015 11:30PM PST

accused of breaking the law especially doing things on the Sabboth - like picking grain from the field and eating it and healing people.

- Collapse -
they broke the Oral Law
Feb 21, 2015 2:05AM PST

now called the Talmud, but it was not God's Law. Jesus was quite plain about that when he told them "You teach for commandments the commandments of men, setting aside the commandments of God".

You can find the verse.

- Collapse -
Here's a useful question, Diane.
Feb 21, 2015 11:26AM PST

WHO accused them of breaking the Law, and what was Jesus' response? The answer is just after the verse or two that you read in each case.
Are you one of those who reads just one verse and tries to make something of it? I've heard that those rascally Jehovah's Witnesses do that. Happy

- Collapse -
Jesus himself answered that.
Feb 20, 2015 6:51AM PST

"Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill."
Paul, an expert on the old Law, said, "[God] kindly forgave us all our trespasses and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake."
There were many more than Ten, there were about 600. No one could obey them perfectly for a lifetime, except Jesus. (1 Pet 2:21 ff.) Since "the wages of sin is death" he died unjustly. He exchanged that death, under Jehovah's own standards, for Adam's sin; that's the value of the ransom sacrifice. (Ex 21:30; Job 33:24; Ps 49:7; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim 2:6. I hope you'll read all these.) The Christian's job is to make others aware of that, while watching his own conduct. (1 Pet 2:12).
Jesus said very little about the Law because his teaching is for the future. Paul, in writing to Jewish Christians, talked about it often and usefully. It's provisions are no longer binding on Christians, but they serve as teachers. (Rom 7:7) And, while acknowledging this he pointed out the "new law" that replaces the Law: Rom 13:8-10. BTW that's what Luther couldn't understand, with all his education.

There's your homework; quiz tomorrow in 3rd Period. Happy

- Collapse -
Nope, but...
Feb 17, 2015 11:40AM PST

there are natural forces He has set in this world, and going against such bring the results predetermined for those who engage in the moral crimes He has outlawed.

- Collapse -
Response
Feb 17, 2015 12:15PM PST

it's too bad that when you pass over to the other side...You won't be able to say "I told you so" because everyone else there will have been saying the same thing as you.

I guess you can all go around high-fiving each other.