Why do they keep some commandments and not others?

[Haphazard]

also, pretty sure there's no verse about tattoos, it was just people interpreting "body as a temple" in legalistic ways.

I was pretty sure the thing about tattoos and self-mutilation (piercings, self-harm) was one of the many, many, many things that Jews were told not to do to differentiate themselves from pagans. This is sometimes interpreted as "don't do it ever" or "don't do it as the pagans do it. If you don't do it in a pagan way it's okay"

I found some interesting interpretation on why Soddom and Gommorah were destroyed, particularly on homosexuality here.

 

[Thalassa]

It's not picking and choosing so much as (a) taking the Bible literally (a decision I respect but do not subscribe to) or (b) trying to read the meaning, which of course, is impossible to do "correctly."

A good example of why I don't advocate taking the Bible literally, but rather contextually (which does not mean not seriously): "Turn the other cheek" has a completely unexpected meaning:


But IME being raised in a church which loudly proclaimed "we welcome all persons who seek to live in faith, regardless of age, race, gender or sexual orientation," the liberal churches are often a group of people who like the idea of the faith but don't want to learn anything about it, of if they do, they bend the Bible to their preconceived beliefs. I learned about the turn the other cheek thing in a conservative church, because I found that there's a lack of intellectual integrity in a lot of liberal churches (not all).

I've yet to see an intellectually grounded (religious) reason for seeing homosexual marriage as a moral option (though I will heartily defend their marriage rights in the public arena, because I don't believe imposing Christian morals upon individuals in a democratic society, I stick with secular humanist ethics for my political choices). And of course the only Christian evaluation of homosexuality is that the act is a sin, not the individual who is inclined to be attracted that way--just like nonmarried heterosexual individuals would be sinful to act in a sexual manner.

I don't think that the Lutheran church lacks intellectual integrity in the slightest, and I went to a very liberal one when I lived in Las Vegas.

By the same token, I've been in some shockingly intellectually barren "conservative" evangelical churches, particularly in the South.

I greatly admire the erudition of the Roman Catholic leaders and respect them highly for educating their people, particularly their leaders, so well, but honestly the primary thing that bothers me about the Catholic church is that they deny communion to people who haven't done the hokey pokey to become an official Catholic and say that babies who haven't been baptized are going to pergatory. What?:steam:

But, yeah, there's some mention in the old testament about not marking one's body as the pagans do.

That's really interesting about the "turn the other cheek" translation, too, thanks for adding that.

 

[Thalassa]

I was pretty sure the thing about tattoos and self-mutilation (piercings, self-harm) was one of the many, many, many things that Jews were told not to do to differentiate themselves from pagans. This is sometimes interpreted as "don't do it ever" or "don't do it as the pagans do it. If you don't do it in a pagan way it's okay"

I found some interesting interpretation on why Soddom and Gommorah were destroyed, particularly on homosexuality here.

Dude, that is a fantastic link. Thank you for sharing.

 

[simulatedworld]

There are certain things that Christian law has kept from the original 613 Jewish commandments, and certain ones that they want.

There are many commandments that explicitly concern moral rectitude, but also many that do not:



Christians have broken many of these commandments.

Did Jesus take the time to revoke all these rules specifically? Can someone explain why some rules that don't have distinct moral value still be considered so important while so many aren't?

Because religion is a cafeteria line: You pick the things you want and leave the things you don't.

Intelligent religious people recognize this and therefore keep their faith a private matter. It's just the dumb ones who run around claiming that their faith is objectively certain or trying to convince anyone else to follow it.

The inconsistencies are far too numerous for anyone operating on a logical basis to accept religion as literally true, but it serves other purposes and many people find the myriad logical inconsistencies to be subservient to the positive effects they find that faith has on their lives.

'sfar as I can tell, anyway.

 

[Venom]

1. A metaphysical truth would require an "a priori synthetic"
2. For it to be A priori, the justification does not rely upon the experience.
3. A good approximation is that an a priori must be "necessary and universal".
4. For it to be synthetic, the predicate concept can't be contained in the subject concept.
5. If the predicate cant be deduced from subject, you're almost never going to avoid an induction: eg "All bachelors are happy" basically equals "All bachelors are probably happy" because the first statement is only true as an induction.

Conclusion: To have a true metaphysical statement, you'd have to state something that was an induction, yet necessary and universal. One of the primary elements of an induction is that its NOT something that follows with absolute necessity!

Thus a true metaphysical statement is likely impossible (the only thing that I think stands a chance is stuff regarding "happiness being desirable"...another thread, another time).

Knowing the above to be true, everyone has the right to believe whatever metaphysics they have to believe (in order to be happy/sane/unhappy/insane/whatever).

Thats why people are allowed to pick and choose...because logically, they can.

 

[Owl]

There are certain things that Christian law has kept from the original 613 Jewish commandments, and certain ones that they want.

There are many commandments that explicitly concern moral rectitude, but also many that do not:

...

Christians have broken many of these commandments.

Did Jesus take the time to revoke all these rules specifically? Can someone explain why some rules that don't have distinct moral value still be considered so important while so many aren't?

A common way of approaching this problem is to classify the commandments/laws as: 1) moral; 2) ceremonial; or 3) civil.

The moral law is universal and necessary.

The ceremonial law governed the temple, sacrificial system, holy days, cleanliness and food laws, etc.

The civil law was a consequence of Israel's political system in which the church and the state were intertwined. (For example, civil consequences were meted out for ecclisiastical infractions; i.e., stoning adulterers.)

All of these laws are important in some respect. Christians don't continue to keep them all, because, as has been mentioned above, Israel's form of polity and the aspects of its religion that were not solely moral were seen as a type and shawdow--a pedagogical tool--pointing toward an as of then temporally uninstantiated reality, a fuller revelation of how God cleanses man from his sin in the context of curse and promise.

 

[Usehername]

I found some interesting interpretation on why Soddom and Gommorah were destroyed, particularly on homosexuality here.

Engaged in consensual homosexual acts -- a same-sex orgy in this case. This is the belief of most conservative Christians. This option seems very unlikely because Genesis 19:5 said that all of the men (perhaps all of the people) of Sodom formed the mob at Lot's house and demanded to "know" the angels. The percentage of homosexuals in a typical group of male adults is generally around 5%, not 100%.

Also, Lot had lived in the city for some years and would have know if all of the men were homosexuals; he would hardly have offered to sacrifice his daughters to the mob if the men were entirely homosexual.

Finally, as noted above, if the men of Sodom were all homosexuals, there would be few if any children and widows in the city as are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

While I did find this idea interesting and I did originally subscribe to it before I did my own research, this is an impossible argument, as I later learned (which I have discussed with my atheistic LGBT professor, who shares my knowledge like every other LGBT prof I've met).

Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) was invented only a few centuries ago; prior to that it was not a possible identity to inhabit. It's a complete anachronism, imposing a way of being that was not possible in the time period. This is exactly what I mean when many liberal religious people are intellectually lazy--if they did some reading even in their "camp" in what's sometimes termed "lesbian and gay theory" in academia, they would realize they're using a 21st century lens to colour their understanding of something from thousands of years ago, rather than knowledge from the time period, which is poor scholarship. I've seen this stuff over and over again--fundamental misunderstandings or gaps of knowledge because they start with a presumption and then find a logical reason to back it up--this is not how a scholar operates. A scholar starts with a theory and researches with integrity to prove or disprove it. This is not difficult information to find in historical or recent academic literature. (Hence the lazy thinking.)

 

[Haphazard]

While I did find this idea interesting and I did originally subscribe to it before I did my own research, this is an impossible argument, as I later learned (which I have discussed with my atheistic LGBT professor, who shares my knowledge like every other LGBT prof I've met).

Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) was invented only a few centuries ago; prior to that it was not a possible identity to inhabit. It's a complete anachronism, imposing a way of being that was not possible in the time period. This is exactly what I mean when many liberal religious people are intellectually lazy--if they did some reading even in their "camp" in what's sometimes termed "lesbian and gay theory" in academia, they would realize they're using a 21st century lens to colour their understanding of something from thousands of years ago, rather than knowledge from the time period, which is poor scholarship. I've seen this stuff over and over again--fundamental misunderstandings or gaps of knowledge because they start with a presumption and then find a logical reason to back it up--this is not how a scholar operates. A scholar starts with a theory and researches with integrity to prove or disprove it. This is not difficult information to find in historical or recent academic literature. (Hence the lazy thinking.)

Yes, there's that. There's a lot of Jewish theory of "you've got to remember that this was written 3,000 years ago."

A lot of religious law was made to protect people from dangers that they didn't understand (see dietary laws because of not understanding bacteria). The "Man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman" is tucked alongside all the incest and many adultery laws. If you think about it in terms of sexual diseases (Syphilis is one of the oldest diseases in the world, with a theory that it existed both in Europe and Pre-Colombian America, to give you an idea of its age) it makes a lot of sense. A married man and woman would only be allowed to sleep with each other. Adultery had the chance of bringing in disease into the relationship. Homosexual sex was similar to adultery because two men would not be bound by marriage and therefore not be committed to only have sex with each other and could also bring in disease into a married relationship. In Judaism everyone was supposed to get married, NOT for the reason "to be fruitful and multiply" (though they certainly tried) but for companionship. Otherwise there probably would have been laws about men divorcing women who weren't able to conceive.

 

[lane777]

also, pretty sure there's no verse about tattoos, it was just people interpreting "body as a temple" in legalistic ways.

Leviticus 19:28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.

 

[Usehername]

Yes, there's that. There's a lot of Jewish theory of "you've got to remember that this was written 3,000 years ago."

A lot of religious law was made to protect people from dangers that they didn't understand (see dietary laws because of not understanding bacteria). The "Man shall not lie with man as he lies with woman" is tucked alongside all the incest and many adultery laws. If you think about it in terms of sexual diseases (Syphilis is one of the oldest diseases in the world, with a theory that it existed both in Europe and Pre-Colombian America, to give you an idea of its age) it makes a lot of sense. A married man and woman would only be allowed to sleep with each other. Adultery had the chance of bringing in disease into the relationship. Homosexual sex was similar to adultery because two men would not be bound by marriage and therefore not be committed to only have sex with each other and could also bring in disease into a married relationship. In Judaism everyone was supposed to get married, NOT for the reason "to be fruitful and multiply" (though they certainly tried) but for companionship. Otherwise there probably would have been laws about men divorcing women who weren't able to conceive.

See? This is a much better argument, appealing to Jewish culture and tradition. I would note, however, that it makes perfect sense that there wouldn't need to be cultural directives about reproducing, because what kind of latex or chemically engineered birth control did they have available at the time? Kids simply happened in marriages with couples able to conceive; one could make a strong argument asserting that there would be no need for God to instruct about that (though I'd note that he did anyway, quite clearly) because sex and babies are inextricably linked.

In the same vein, Christians who are pro-homosexual marriage relationships in the church cannot make their argument without also disowning the notions of what constitutes God's instructions for families, i.e. thinking that it's okay to get married with the intention of never reproducing (the teachings exclude those who are physically unable, of course). This argument seems logical, but requires disowning major themes in Christian teaching, which I almost never see happening.

Christianity revolves around a life of practicing the fruits of the spirit: self-control, kindness, gentleness, etc. and these are woven throughout the Bible teachings in direct relation to intergenerational interaction. You can't be godly or search after holiness apart from the spirit*; kids require parents to turn their lives upside down and reorder their priorities from being self-involved to other-focused. These concepts are core to the development of the Christian as spelled out throughout the entire religion; it's supposed to help us fulfill our roles bringing the kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven (Lord's Prayer reference).
That's why Paul says it's easier to not get married, because to do so requires one to reorder one's life around others both younger and older, taking an active role in the community, whereas he as a bachelor does not hold responsibilities to anyone but the church.
It's fundamental. Yes, homosexual relationships could still engage in intergenerational family relationships, but they're cutting out a lot of the Bible teachings, using a surgeon's knife to make it work for that way of living. There's a lot of references in the Bible about what is the good and right way to live one's life as a family member, and they all revolve around heterosexual marriage relationships. Just as it's against teachings for me as a non-married individual to engage in any sexual activity, it's a sin for anyone outside of a heterosexual marriage relationship to engage in sexual activity. Key word: activity.

*

RECAP

1. You can't be godly apart from the Spirit; you're just not at that level, and not that kind of good.
2. As a matter of our nature, we are hell-bent on getting what we desire. Even the best side of you gets twisted by this inner drive.
3. God has a very different way, and wants you to follow it. Since you can't, the Spirit grows you up, cleans you up, and makes good ('fruit') come from you, in the manner of Jesus Christ.
4. Where there are 'the fruit of the Spirit', the Spirit is at work. You can put your trust in this truth.
5. Each person in the Spirit has the fruit differently, and each fruit has a different shape in each person -- but all the spiritual fruits will show themselves in each Christian as he or she goes deeper into their walk with the Spirit.
-from the link

 

[Usehername]

Leviticus 19:28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.

Huh, I guess I need to get back to Leviticus again. Thanks!

 

[compulsiverambler]

I'm not too clear on what exactly you're asking, but I'll take a stab Most of secular society, holds the view that morals are inborn. Morals however, originate from God (or from within religion, as some might put it) - which is the meaning of Romans 7:7 (Atheists chose to adopt some of these practices simply because of their practical application; many Biblical proverbs/precepts contribute to happiness.)

They contribute to human happiness, in every culture that's known to exist, yet aren't inborn?

One relatively primitive region of the brain has indeed been observed making us feel good about making others happy (as long as they're perceived as deserving it and we haven't yet been conditioned to class them as part of the 'out-group') and bad about making them unhappy. Other animal species have this instinct too.

It's in competition with other instincts of course, the desires for food, sex, security and revenge being a few that can over-ride the desire not to cause distress depending on the circumstances and relative strengths of these desires at the time. It's one thing to suggest this 'conscience' is a gift from God, but it's another to ignore all the evidence that it's something we're born with.

 

[Usehername]

They contribute to human happiness, in every culture that's known to exist, yet aren't inborn?

One relatively primitive region of the brain has indeed been observed making us feel good about making others happy (as long as they're perceived as deserving it and we haven't yet been conditioned to class them as part of the 'out-group') and bad about making them unhappy. Other animal species have this instinct too.

It's in competition with other instincts of course, the desire for food, sex, security and revenge being a few that can over-ride the desire not to cause distress depending on the circumstances and relative strengths of these desires at the time.

But not everyone in the culture subscribes to those ideas, just the culture at large. By your argument, because murder is found in every culture that's known to exist, that could be inborn.

 

[compulsiverambler]

But not everyone in the culture subscribes to those ideas, just the culture at large. By your argument, because murder is found in every culture that's known to exist, that could be inborn.

It doesn't matter. Not everyone shares the instinct for heterosexual sex, or for sex at all. Some people have been found with a condition that makes them experience pleasurable sensations in the face of what would otherwise be painful injuries. That doesn't make these instincts any less inborn in the rest of us, it's just the nature of genetic variation.

No different from other genetic traits. There are some that most have and some that almost everyone has. The fact that occasionally someone is born with four legs doesn't mean that being born with two legs is not genetic.

 

[Spamtar]

Regardless if they are no longer applicable in most Christian teaching they are still funny: This one cracked me up

'#82 Not to indulge in familiarities with relatives, such as kissing, embracing, winking, skipping, which may lead to incest'

'Yeah Dad we were just 'skipping' playing jacks and next thing you know I Sis and I started porking each other. Damm you 'skipping'!

 

[Usehername]

It doesn't matter. Not everyone shares the instinct for heterosexual sex, or for sex at all. Some people have been found with a condition that makes them experience pleasurable sensations in the face of what would otherwise be painful injuries. That doesn't make these instincts any less inborn in the rest of us, just takes in to account individual genetic variation.

I don't see the point you're making here, either. You could appeal to temporal lobe epileptics who have profound religious experiences when their brain's electrical storms go off in a purely biological manner, and your point wouldn't even hold.

Yes, biology exists. However, the onus is on you to explain why this precludes any higher being's involvement--the best you can say is that you choose to restrict your epistemological grounds to science, but then appealing to the philosophy of science puts you in the same position as theistic believers--you're still laying your chips down at the foot of a belief system, to the exclusion of other belief system choices.

Christianity does not preclude the symphonic directives of biology, it includes it--the Bible is full of teachings about that which is living, tangible and physical. OTOH, those who assert that biology is the only logical option for knowing have to make a case for disowning every other major epistemological inquiry. Yours is a tall task.

 

[Spamtar]

'#106 Not to castrate the male of any species; neither a man, nor a domestic or wild beast, nor a fowl'

Yeah my cat pointed this one out to me the day we discussed having him fixed. So don't blame me pagan neighbor with the pregnant feline.:rolli:

Thats the cool thing about being Christianity, Islam or Judaism, is you can call everyone else pagans.

 

[compulsiverambler]

I don't see the point you're making here, either. You could appeal to temporal lobe epileptics who have profound religious experiences when their brain's electrical storms go off in a purely biological manner, and your point wouldn't even hold.

Yes, biology exists. However, the onus is on you to explain why this precludes any higher being's involvement--the best you can say is that you choose to restrict your epistemological grounds to science, but then appealing to the philosophy of science puts you in the same position as theistic believers--you're still laying your chips down at the foot of a belief system, to the exclusion of other belief system choices.

Christianity does not preclude the symphonic directives of biology, it includes it--the Bible is full of teachings about that which is living, tangible and physical. OTOH, those who assert that biology is the only logical option for knowing have to make a case for disowning every other major epistemological inquiry. Yours is a tall task.

My point was merely that morality, at least, if we're talking strictly about the 'Golden Rule' aspect of morality, which we probably are as lane777 was talking about the precepts that atheists tend to follow, is indeed inborn. Most Christians I know do believe that it's inborn as well, so it wasn't even a theistic vs. atheistic point.

 

[Usehername]

My point was merely that morality, at least, if we're talking strictly about the 'Golden Rule' aspect of morality, which we probably are as lane777 was talking about the precepts that atheists tend to follow, is indeed inborn. Most Christians I know do believe that it's inborn as well, so it wasn't even a theistic vs. atheistic point.

You're right. Sorry for skimming your first point.

 

[compulsiverambler]

You're right. Sorry for skimming your first point.

Don't worry, I do it all the time.