It doesn't.
lain:Did I say that the Mafia existed? :nono:
I think you are a bit confused about what has and has not been said. :think:
How 'bout you, me, and Pauly here go for a little ride and we'll get you.....straightened out.
lain: :Clete:
Drug Dealing and the Bible
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
It doesn't.
lain:Did I say that the Mafia existed? :nono:
I think you are a bit confused about what has and has not been said. :think:
How 'bout you, me, and Pauly here go for a little ride and we'll get you.....straightened out.
lain: :Clete:
I think you are running off a bridge at full speed. How is that for saying what I mean without using any Latin?
Drinking in moderation is not the same as being drunk.
One cannot fornicate in moderation.
Man made morality is not the answer!
Nazaroo
New member
Sure. When the Nazis "lost" the war, about 50,000 of them immigrated to Canada where I live, and took all the skilled jobs, because our people were more concerned with getting their hands on German technology than preserving Christian morality.
The only boatload of Jews to show up on Canada's doorstep was turned away, consigning those aboard to horrible deaths.
German drug companies recently re-issued Thalidomide in third-world countries where they can control the laws, and make more dishonest profits and experiments on human beings.
'nuff said.
Lucky you.
How does your lack of concern help others in entirely different circumstances?
Every first time hit-and-run drunk driver explains away his case as an 'isolated incident', not his normal behaviour.
Put another way, every repeat-offender had a first time he never learned from.
Its you who are reading too much into things.
I would prefer you did the honest thing, and quit your university course, and refused to join the 'educated elite' for maximum profit, and instead found honest employment.
peace
Nazaroo
Nazaroo
New member
Exactly.
And drinking in moderation is not the same as being sober, either.
Precisely.
And one cannot "be sober" in moderation, anymore than one can be "a little bit pregnant".
If you doubt the requirements regarding alcohol for holiness, consult Numbers 6:
'He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no fermentation of wine, or fermentation of strong drink;
Neither shall he drink any grape drink, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing grows from the vine, from the seeds even to the skin.' (Numbers 6:3-4)
The 'not so much as a grape-seed' rule is worded this way for an important reason:Neither shall he drink any grape drink, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing grows from the vine, from the seeds even to the skin.' (Numbers 6:3-4)
To prevent exactly the kind of watering-down of the message that has now occurred in North American Churches who don't bother to read the O.T. details on vows of sobriety.
As Alcoholics Anonymous and many others have found out, only ABSTINENCE can keep a man sober who has had previous problems with alcohol or any addictive drug.
And alcohol is an addictive drug. - The biggest problem drug in North America.
Tyrathca
New member
Sorry but you'll have to clarify. 50,000 Nazi's or 50,000 Germans? And how did they take all the skilled jobs, you population would have been lower but not that low would it?
I don't see how this at all follows from the first statement or relates at ALL to my question. I also beleive that thalidomide has been re-issued in 1st world countries for use in very restricted setting (i.e. to avoid use in unknowingly pregnant women). The reason for its re-issue is I THINK (this is all of the top of my head) that it is used in some cancers, I am fairly confident that whatever use it is for it is related to taking advantage of the reason it is so teratogenic in pregnancy.
But what does this have to do with a nazi biker conspiracy theory? And why are all the evil pharmaceutical companies german, are the non-german ones good?
It helps them realise that there isn't a global conspiracy theory like you claim. SOme schools are ****, many schools have drug problems, but these problems aren't due to the reasons you say.
How does this rebut my comment? You claimed that almost no one can avoid abusing alcohol, that moderation is impossible. Yet clearly this does not reflect the rates of alcohol use and dependance compared to acohol use.
So instead you're calling me a dishonest money grubber, that is SOOOOO much better. And how is trying to save peoples lives dishonest? Seriously, if you'd been in med school you'd know there are easier and less stressful ways to make money.
All forms of diabetes are genetic in origen. Type 1 used to be called "juvenile onset diabetes". It involves a near total failure of the pancreas to produce insulin. Type 2 or "adult onset" diabetes occures when the pancreas can't produce enough insulin for the body's needs. Sometimes this is caused by obesity. There is too just much body and not enough pancreas. More often it is caused by the ageing process. Basicaly everyone will become diabetic if they live long enough. Just as some men lose their hair early and some late, some not at all, so type 2 diabetes occures related to aging but controled by genetics.
The point of this is that there is no evidence that diabetes can be "caused" by poor diet, except in the case of diabetes related to obesity. Even that is complicated by the fact that a primary sympton of diabets is increased appetite. Eating sugar will not cause diabetes. Developing a habit of consuming large amounts of sugar will make it hard to live on a diabetic diet when and if you need to, but there is no evidence that it will cause the condition.
The point of this is that there is no evidence that diabetes can be "caused" by poor diet, except in the case of diabetes related to obesity. Even that is complicated by the fact that a primary sympton of diabets is increased appetite. Eating sugar will not cause diabetes. Developing a habit of consuming large amounts of sugar will make it hard to live on a diabetic diet when and if you need to, but there is no evidence that it will cause the condition.
Last edited:
Well...it has been shown that high carb diets and increased consumption of HF Corn Syrup may be a cause of increased Insulin Resistance......but then we've already established the Grocery Clerk is Hell-bound for pushing Caffeine and Trypotophan so I guess the point is moot. :idunno:
Nazaroo
New member
ITT: All Gemans are Nazis and Education = Immorality.
Success in the current educational system indicates quite clearly that:
(1) You've bought into their secular humanist philosophy bigtime, or
(2) You've lied and pretended to buy into their secular humanist philosophy.
Which is more dishonest? Impossible to measure.
In other words, you've allowed yourself to be marked down as pro-abortion, gay-friendly, anti-Christian, and that you know how to kiss arse and not ruffle feathers by working within the system to take your cut and affect very little social change that is not within the parameters spelled out by the educational heirarchy.
I'm sorry, but whats a Geman?
Is this what you mean?
http://www.kirupa.com/motiongraphics/images/final.jpg
Nazaroo
New member
Interesting that your focus is still on making money...perhaps you'd make a good modern doctor after all.
Nazaroo
New member
Nazaroo
New member
I don't care whether you can spell origin.
But you are just parrotting trivial inaccuracies about 'diabetes'.
From a practical standpoint, 90% of real cases of diabetes are actually related to eating garbage, heavy drinking, drug abuse, and accidental industrial poisoning.
Thats a clue that 90% of known cases of diabetes would be preventable if people had USEFUL information in their hands, had USEFUL instructions to follow, and had REASONABLE commitment to their own and others' wellbeing.
In other words, they got a Bible and did their best to understand and follow its advice.
... cases related to obesity, which appear to be 60-90% of cases not related to alcoholisim.
Its well known that the change of diet from natural foods found by hunting, fishing, and farming, to refined sugar, packaged and bleached-out, preserved commercial foods, essentially destroyed the entire Innuit/Eskimo community here in Canada.
They went from being strong healthy people with perfect teeth to sickly miserable people rife with the diseases of the White Man.
And this was no accident. The Europeans were following a planned and conscious policy to confuse, starve, exploit, drive out and kill all aboriginal peoples in Canada.
They began with handing out blankets covered in Small Pox virus, and selling hard liquor to them, to forced relocation on reservations, to institutionalization of all children and erasure of all Indian culture, and finally to pedophilic abuse in said "schools", along with an agressive drug pushing program in all the reservation-communities.
In short, racist genocide, using poisoned food, drugs, monstrous abuse, and imposed poverty.
Of course the exponential rise in cases of "diabetes" (falsely or accurately diagnosed) is all a mere coincidence, and unrelated to the ongoing race wars.
Do you have any land in Florida for sale?
Nazaroo
New member
I did not read past the post I quoted, but by that time I was sick of the nonsense. That scripture (Matt 15:11) just came to the top of my brain and I posted it.
Would you (or have you, I didn't read everything) comment on Matt 15:11 ?
This same thing is repeated in one of the other gospels also.
How say you? Is there something you can put in your mouth that will defile you, was Jesus wrong?
As regards the verses aimed at me. Judgment involves a sentence. The judge discerns the facts and pronounces sentence. We (as believers) must discern certain things. I pronounce no sentence on anyone. I was wrong and full of myself for 50 years, I think I turned out ok. The same is possible for anyone, no matter what they have done. No, I do not judge, but I do discern spirits.
Nameste,
Ed
You have serious issues for which you should seek some sincere help.
Define success. :think:
Don't be silly
Nope...not that either. :think:
:think: True....that would be impossible to measure. Kind of like trying to measure the dishonesty of presenting these as the only two options
Perhaps if I was one of these passive types that may be true......but I have never been that.....but seeing as how I have only a High School Diploma I have never intended to go very far in the Educational heirarchy. I have, instead, worked my way tediously ever higher in what you would define as a "real job"....but I digress:
:think: My mother, however, was a Teacher and Administrator in the New Jersey Public School System for 20+ years, and I don't recall her ever "kissing arse" etc...etc...
In short, just because you have a defeatist passive-aggressive demeanor does not mean that everybody does.
lain:A misspelling
Not exactly......are you by chance related to Lighthouse?
Nazaroo
New member
Yes I will comment:
Jesus wasn't wrong, but modern translations, and modern doctrines ARE wrong.
(1) Matthew was the last gospel written, by church committee, with a clear purpose, that of harmonizing the conflicting factions (Jewish-Christian vs. Gentile/Pauline-Christian) within the Church. Luke (writing earlier) records the creative conflicts and the novel solutions of the Apostles, from the 'vision' of Peter to the Letter by James from the Jerusalem Council. Food Laws were a post-Jesus'-Ministry problem.
(2) Matthew here copies, edits and interprets Mark, and Mark's version is primitive, so Matthew is of little interest here.
(3) Mark's version has been edited/corrupted in the Alexandrian copying stream, and the corrupted reading has been adopted by almost all "modern" versions, based on the mutilated critical Greek text(s) of Westcott/Hort (1882), Nestle (1908), and UBS-2 (1965).
Here I will post a full account of the proper reading and interpretation of Mark's narrative:
------------------------------------------
The Problem with Mark 7:19
The Problem with this particular scripture is complicated by two layers of confusion.
The first concerns the Greek text.
While the Traditional (Majority/Received) Greek text of Mark reads as follows:
"...παν το εχωθεν εισπορευμενον εις τον ανθρωπον
ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι.
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου την καρδιαν
αλλ' εις την κοιλιαν,
και εις τον αφεδρωμα εκπορευεται,
καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα."
The Hort/Nestle/UBS text however, reads καθαριζων, ('[he was] purifying'), thus ending the quotation after εκπορευεται, and setting off the last phrase as Mark's explanation in the narrative (rather than a continuation of Jesus' speech). This reading is only supported by three manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Vaticanus (B), and Alexandrinus (A), against the entire corpus of thousands of other MSS. ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι.
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου την καρδιαν
αλλ' εις την κοιλιαν,
και εις τον αφεδρωμα εκπορευεται,
καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα."
"...παν το εχωθεν εισπορευμενον εις τον ανθρωπον
ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι.
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου την καρδιαν
αλλ' εις την κοιλιαν,
και εις τον αφεδρωμα εκπορευεται."
- καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.
What is the significance of the change? It represents a stage in the Romanization (Gentilizing) of the New Testament, in which early editors tried to remove the embarrassing "Jewish" elements and downplay the Jewish origins and teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, in the process of making Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. ου δυναται αυτον κοινωσαι.
οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου την καρδιαν
αλλ' εις την κοιλιαν,
και εις τον αφεδρωμα εκπορευεται."
- καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα.
We can see the significant impact of the alteration of a single letter in one word in the resulting translation:
The Traditional text reads:
"...everything from outside entering into the man
is not able to make him 'common';
because it doesn't enter into his heart,
but into the intestine,
and into the toilet passes,
purifying [the man] of all the foods..."
The Traditional text is straightforward, and simply states the obvious, that even if food temporarily enters a man, it also leaves again, restoring a man's purity (e.g. through fasting). There is no "magical" meaning attached to Jesus' words, nor is it needed, in order to make sense of the teaching. is not able to make him 'common';
because it doesn't enter into his heart,
but into the intestine,
and into the toilet passes,
purifying [the man] of all the foods..."
The UBS text reads (and mistakenly translates):
"...everything from outside entering into the man
is not able to make him 'common';
because it doesn't enter into his heart,
but into the intestine,
and into the toilet passes."
- [he was ] purifying all foods...
Naturally, all 'modern' versions, based on these 4th century Roman heavily edited ecclesiastical texts make Mark say in the narrative that Jesus had "declared all foods clean". is not able to make him 'common';
because it doesn't enter into his heart,
but into the intestine,
and into the toilet passes."
- [he was ] purifying all foods...
But this not only rests on shakey textual ground, but it rests also on a super-imposed meaning based on Roman Catholic popular teaching.
When we look at the complete context, the correct reading is obvious:
(1) Jesus lived as a law-abiding Jew during His public ministry.
(2) Had Jesus and His disciples been actually breaking the Jewish Food Laws, the Pharisees would hardly have quibbled about hand-washing, but would have accused Him (as they later did over the Sabbath) of breaking with Jewish Law (Torah).
But the worst the Pharisees can observe is that some of Jesus' disciples forgot to wash their hands.
(3) Had Jesus taught that "all foods were clean" during His public ministry, all the Apostles would have long known of it, and Peter would have no need of any "vision" in Acts to clarify things.
In fact, Peter's vision is not about food at all, but about racism, and the interpretation of the vision is given by Peter himself under angelic guidance.
(4) Nor would the Apostles in council have needed to review the matter and issue a simplified set of food-laws for Gentiles, if Jesus had taught that neither JEWS nor Gentiles needed to keep the Food Laws.
This is just another case of 19th century textual critics running after and idolizing a handful of 4th century manuscripts over and against the traditional text of the New Testament used by Christians for a thousand years. (2) Had Jesus and His disciples been actually breaking the Jewish Food Laws, the Pharisees would hardly have quibbled about hand-washing, but would have accused Him (as they later did over the Sabbath) of breaking with Jewish Law (Torah).
But the worst the Pharisees can observe is that some of Jesus' disciples forgot to wash their hands.
(3) Had Jesus taught that "all foods were clean" during His public ministry, all the Apostles would have long known of it, and Peter would have no need of any "vision" in Acts to clarify things.
In fact, Peter's vision is not about food at all, but about racism, and the interpretation of the vision is given by Peter himself under angelic guidance.
(4) Nor would the Apostles in council have needed to review the matter and issue a simplified set of food-laws for Gentiles, if Jesus had taught that neither JEWS nor Gentiles needed to keep the Food Laws.
Mark 7:19 is a good example of what happens when Protestants goof off.
Ok, so you don't want to comment on Matthew.
Mark 7:5-15
5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,but their hearts are far from me. 7They worship me in vain;their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f]
Mark 7:20-23
20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
The charge is unclean hands, the answer was that nothing entering the body (including unclean hands) would defile a man.
Of course I understand where you're coming from now. Matthew is out, Mark is ok, except it has problems.
Nameste,
Ed