Boy you sure are rude. I bet people really like you.
The quote you had from Acts does not say anything about clean and unclean foods. I want it to sasy specifically that it is OK to eat prok, to eat crab to eat well you get the picture I want it to say, The levitical laws as it pertains to food are now lifted. It seems to me that you and others have instead of providing direct quotes for the questions I need answered have used the philosiphical arguments amongst the apostles and to those of the early churches.
Otherwise our argument comes full circle. If you are to take word for word the biblical account for creation, and then interpet a philosiphical argument to mean the abdication and allowance of eating what was once considered unclean, then maybe you can understand why I have been giving you the run around, otherwise continue your bashing and name calling of me,call me ignorant and unknowledgable, but remember this if you can only answer with philosophy and not written fact then you are in nothing but the same boat I am.
You really don't know scripture do you. And, no, I haven't invoked philosophy. I understand you're giving the run around because you think your line of argumentation is somehow so well crafted that my responses would lead down a predictable path. When they failed to, you were left trying to pigeon hole me into an argument you wanted to respond to and were disarmed because it wasn't the one you got.
Secondarily, History is history. The guy that shot Kennedy is no less the guy that shot Kennedy whether the law with regard to his punishment changed or not. The leap you are attempting is an embarrassment and you don't even have the good sense to be embarrassed. Whether the law is useful to God's latest covenant with all of mankind as opposed to the first one (with Israel) has nothing whatever to do with how God created everything. It just has nothing at all to do with it.
As for being rude, I imagine a am from your perspective. You come unprepared to an argument, cuss me out, etc and then show and admit that you don't know the subject. When
I note you aren't prepared, I'm rude. You're the one who
was here "3 days" discussing this. Did you expect the knowledge of what the Bible actually says to just spring up into your head. Since you're arguing against it, one would hope you'd have some idea what you're arguing against. When you don't, it occurs some of us might be a little put off that you're actively denouncing something when you don't even know what you're denouncing. It's a position that's more than a tad intellectually vacant.
You are speaking on a public forum. Has that sunk in? You don't look bad because of anything I've said. I understand your ego is hurt by the facts in this case; but, if you really cared about that, you would have bothered to know what you were arguing against before coming in here and making a butt of yourself to the point you felt compelled at least to apologize to me for cussing me. Apology accepted btw. The apology doesn't repair your position.. study does.
And that isn't rude, you just don't like it being said when you know it's true and are to some extent both embarrassed you don't know, embarrassed you're wrong and angry to be holding a position you can't defend. All of those things stem from your own choices and actions or lack thereof. I'm not the one being rude here, you are - and to both myself and yourself. Take a hint.