I think for me, the only sane option is the Lib Dems. I don't actually agree with everything they say (Europe) but I do believe they are telling the truth and that's worth more than anything to me.
Actually, AIUI, "apricot" would be a better translation (and most modern translations just go for "fruit"), and given the number of Apricots around it might be a while before they come into contact.
I have in the past received spam so light in content that it was impossible to take advantage of the wonderfully enticing offer. However, that's rare. In general, however, it should be possible to track the spam back to its origin by tracking where the money goes.
Some of the answers you've already received I consider useful, but I don't think they really give a full and clear picture. To address your post slightly out of order: firstly "to make homosexuality an unforgiveable sin" is either a common misrepresentation of the mainstream evangelical position or the flamebait position of the extremist fringe. The unforgiveable sin mentioned in the Bible is calling God Satan, and it is unforgiveable because the person committing it will not ask God for forgiveness. Moreover, homosexuality per se is not a sin: rather homosexual lust is, just as heterosexual lust is, and homosexual practice is, just as adultery is.
Moving on to your main point, I want to seek to clarify what has already been said about the OT law being superceded or "deprecated". The role of the law is complex: it includes giving a national identity to Israel, and preparing them for the coming of the Messiah. Part of the law then, and a major theme of Leviticus in particular, relates to the sacrifices which God appointed as substitutes, until the sacrifice of Jesus, in part to remind of the serious nature of sin, and in part, somehow, to allow a sinful people to have relationship with the holy God. Since Christ's sacrifice is so much greater, these sacrifices are no longer necessary.
Another part of the law relates to civil matters, for Israel was not only a religious body but also a sovereign nation. Thus you see laws relating to civic offices, labour legislation, punishment scales, etc. As the modern church is not a nation, these laws are not directly applicable.
I should observe, though, that neither the so-called ceremonial nor civil law of the Old Testament is entirely irrelevant to modern Christians. Although they're not directly applicable, the principles behind them give insight into God's attitudes and priorities. The third category of law, the so-called moral law, is that which is purely principles based on God's character, the unchanging nature of which means that those laws are directly relevant today. (Not that Christianity is about living to a set of rules: rather that the law's revelation of God's nature shows us how to live to please Him).
I realise that this may not fully address your objection, but I've already gone on for a long time. If you want me to elaborate, please ask.
Likewise, the phrase "begging the question" already has a well-defined meaning disparate from "asking the question." If "begging the question" meant "asking the question" in formal speech, how would one actually say "begging the question?"
You would still say "begging the question", but intransitively. Whenever "begging the question" is used as "asking the question" it is transitive: thus there need be no confusion.
The people who don't pay the TV License (which is ~$200 USD a year) still have and watch TV's.
I don't. The only thing I used to watch on TV was news and BBC Parliament. I can get the former on the Web, and I can make up for the latter by skimming Hansard, which is also on the Web.
Nobody that has ever eaten in an english pub and survived will ever claim that the UK is known for it's
(sic) great food.
Did you add the "and survived" clause to cover yourself against dead people claiming that the UK is known for its great food?
Pub food varies a lot from pub to pub - and in some pubs, from week to week. I've eaten wonderful pub meals - a certain sweet-and-sour chicken in a pineapple boat comes to mind - and pub meals which had to be sent back because they hadn't been fully defrosted.
They still knock on your door to ask you why you don't have a licence even though you don't have a TV. It's happened to me in the past. Either their detection is rubbish or their administration is rubbish.
What a let-down. I read the fine summary and was impressed by the new technology which allows people to download physical objects. Now you're telling me that I've been cruelly misled?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, AIUI, "apricot" would be a better translation (and most modern translations just go for "fruit"), and given the number of Apricots around it might be a while before they come into contact.
If you read the sibling post to yours and the reply thereto, you'll find that your objection was in fact answered six days before your post.
I've seen plenty of submissions whose poster clearly hasn't RTFA.
Some people don't get months of summer, you insensitive clod. Here in England we're lucky to get a week.
I have in the past received spam so light in content that it was impossible to take advantage of the wonderfully enticing offer. However, that's rare. In general, however, it should be possible to track the spam back to its origin by tracking where the money goes.
I do vaguely recall some radio ads from about 8 years ago which I wished at the time were available on CD.
Magnificent. Your list of fans just grew by one.
One could ask them the same: why do MT, Qa and LXX not always agree? The NT isn't the only half of the Bible to need textual analysis.
Moving on to your main point, I want to seek to clarify what has already been said about the OT law being superceded or "deprecated". The role of the law is complex: it includes giving a national identity to Israel, and preparing them for the coming of the Messiah. Part of the law then, and a major theme of Leviticus in particular, relates to the sacrifices which God appointed as substitutes, until the sacrifice of Jesus, in part to remind of the serious nature of sin, and in part, somehow, to allow a sinful people to have relationship with the holy God. Since Christ's sacrifice is so much greater, these sacrifices are no longer necessary.
Another part of the law relates to civil matters, for Israel was not only a religious body but also a sovereign nation. Thus you see laws relating to civic offices, labour legislation, punishment scales, etc. As the modern church is not a nation, these laws are not directly applicable.
I should observe, though, that neither the so-called ceremonial nor civil law of the Old Testament is entirely irrelevant to modern Christians. Although they're not directly applicable, the principles behind them give insight into God's attitudes and priorities. The third category of law, the so-called moral law, is that which is purely principles based on God's character, the unchanging nature of which means that those laws are directly relevant today. (Not that Christianity is about living to a set of rules: rather that the law's revelation of God's nature shows us how to live to please Him).
I realise that this may not fully address your objection, but I've already gone on for a long time. If you want me to elaborate, please ask.
Are you saying that you think John Cleese in drag is sexy?
So that's why my twin sister wants me to shave mine off: she thinks she'll then be able to take control of my secret underground lair...
Nonsense. Toilet paper's useful.
Not quite. I watched some TV when I was visiting my parents over Christmas. I don't have a TV myself, though.
Are you callin' me insignificant 'cos I is black?
Pub food varies a lot from pub to pub - and in some pubs, from week to week. I've eaten wonderful pub meals - a certain sweet-and-sour chicken in a pineapple boat comes to mind - and pub meals which had to be sent back because they hadn't been fully defrosted.
They still knock on your door to ask you why you don't have a licence even though you don't have a TV. It's happened to me in the past. Either their detection is rubbish or their administration is rubbish.
What a let-down. I read the fine summary and was impressed by the new technology which allows people to download physical objects. Now you're telling me that I've been cruelly misled?
You could always walk down to the library...