In Deuteronomy 25:4-10 we read:

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel. And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.

Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

"And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed. "

Sorry... Biblical text always makes me giggle...

/spam/

Woo. You quote scripture. Are you going to bring up a topic now?

I'm with Mike on this one. What the hey, here's a bit from the Koran for you:



Hours of fun, and a cracking ending, I reckon. Now, how about a bit from the Tao Te Ching?



Frankly these seem a lot more sensible than forcing people to marry their dead-brother's wife.

Aldis, is there a point you're making, because clearly we're missing it at the moment?

Possibly Aldis is making the point that people shouldn't be made to marry their dead brother's wives, and that the bible quote suggests that they should?

Perhaps he needs to marry his own brother's wife and is trying to contrast modern-day ethics with the Bible to make his decision. Or maybe he is trying to help his brother decide whether to marry another brother's wife? Honestly, does the original post even have a point? Do make it clear what you're talking about, please.

-If- you have no idea about the culture, yes. However, for these laws to make sense, you need to take it in context people. Women were property in most cultures, a woman without a husband or family was often in the worst possible situation. Childlessness was a severe social stigma and blamed on the woman. Widows without a son to take care of her or money often became paupers and struggled to survive. Having your name carried on was also of huge social/cultural importance. The first child of the dead brother's wife and her new husband would carry his name. It also provided the woman with status, a chance at life and a place in society. With those factors in mind, it makes great sense.

There's a story of woman who slept with her father-in-law when he didn't follow this law, just so she would not be left alone and childless. So bah, all of you. >.>

*jolts awake*
I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that ...

*tries to count the number of times he's made that argument to Christians about Biblical teachings on homosexuality*
*runs out of fingers*

Aldis has done a good job of pointing out that many things in the Bible aren't very applicable to modern times... But I suspect highlighting the irrelevance of biblical teachings wasn't the intention (it rarely is when people start quoting scripture).

Its not quite that simple, as its mentioned more than once and not just in the OT. If it was just mentioned in the OT, yes, that would be a harder to counter argument. As its mentioned in the NT as well, it becomes much harder to just write off as discard Jewish Law.



I don't think scripture is meant to be relevant in that sense. 'The times' change in 10, 20 or even 50 years. Relevant and popular philosophies that once preoccupied countries are forgotten or seem absurd. The American cold war is forgotten, women can vote and you aren't considered hysterical if you just feel sexual. The Bible is not meant to be popular, modern or adjusted to our times. Especially as these times will be changing drastically within 20 or 50 years. Its also kind of silly to expect the Bible to be 'modern' as it calls the world corrupt and sometimes quite evil regardless of whether it was Bible times, Babylon, Rome or Ancient Israel. If you believe something is often evil, the last thing you want to do is adjust to the times and match it.

But that's my point really. Why should Jewish law be malleable to cultural interpretation and not Christian law? It's all there in the same Bible.

Jewish law: around 2500 year old middle-eastern ideas about sin.

Christian law: around 1500 year old middle-eastern ideas about sin (most books were rewritten lots of times after Christ before we got the versions that now source our Bibles, even ignoring the gnostic texts).

Neither of these structures is seeming to have a significantly better claim of relevance to modern times that the other. Which leads us to your, very valid, argument that God's law does not change and so it does not need reinterpretation. That's an interesting argument but relies on the human authors of God's law to be infallible. Given their humanity, I find that argument impossible to accept. This is added to the various selection processes that have taken place by the Bible's editors over the years, resulting in a text that seems to reflect the opinions of human's understanding of (what may or may not have been) God's laws. To me, the laws in the Bible were written by people who, assuming that they really did have divine inspiration, filtered the words of God through their own understanding of the world. Is it so wrong that modern readers wish to read those words in a revisionist manner?

I'm not a Jew would be the first reason. Abraham's convenant does not apply to me nor will I be numbered about the twelve tribes. Jewish Law hinges on the convenant to Abraham and such. The whole premise of Christianity is that Jesus fulfilled that convenant. His death and ressurection was the ultimate sacrifice that took away the need for all others. His blood is meant to purify beyond what the priests could do. Parts of it are simply no longer necessary, hence the fact that we do not do them. There are also things like the brother's wife law that no longer exist in context. Homosexuality still exists. But I no longer depend on my brother-in-law's brother to marry me for my survival.



My belief is that the Bible is meant to be relevant to the human condition. Some things exist in every age. Human nature does not change nor do the bulk of societies problems and what they spring from. Human cruelty and selfishness, which leads to poverty and various evils of whatever age. The human longing for something more or to have hope, ect. These things I believe the Bible speaks to, because these things will always be there. The details might change, but not the essential whole.



I believe God's law changes and it doesn't. I don't believe the two greatest commandments ever change and those essentially define every other behavior and command. But do I think that I'm still expected to cover my head when it isn't a mark of modesty in my society? No. I could do it, but men wouldn't consider it modest anymore than not flashing my cleavage.

I'm going to go ahead and just say: Men do mess up God's law. This happened with the Pharisee's. They added extra laws, used it to torment the people and abused it. It has happened and it will happen. Its like science, the law and everything else. Men will find a way to abuse it, however perfect the concept might be. This means that at times we might be wrong. That we might make a wrong decision. Its the same risk we take with everything else and we do the best we can. I don't ignore all science because it relies on the scientists to be unbiased, fair and interpret the information accurately and there will be failures at some point. Those failures do not make the original concept untrue or science worthless. I just try to check my sources and do the best I can. I am not responsible if someone mis-led me about the Bible. I am responsible for what I know and do not do. And that is the important point.



I think people like to exaggerate this and hold it up to standards that they don't apply to science, 'historical documents' or a lot of research. But its not really my point. Yes, people will have abused it whether in intrepretation or whatever. If I proved tomorrow that the texts were the same as the originals, would that be enough? Would you still question whether we can trust that?



Its not wrong to want something.. usually. My confusion/objections come from the fact that rather than simply seeing it as right or wrong or to be taken in context, people often wish to rewrite it. When the old point is that the Bible reveals God's word to us and is the one truth, rewriting that truth makes it all meaningless. If it was true, it didn't need to be rewritten. If its a lie, why are rewriting it instead of going with things we believe and know to be true? I enjoy Nietzche for example. I take him in context and I while I don't always agree, I don't need to make more palatable to my modern sensibilities. Because I don't believe he is God or the truth. Rewriting him also wouldn't change the reality of the old Nietzche, it would just make him more pc or whatever I was going for.

Moop put it well: "as in, if you abstract it out to the moral principle rather than the exact situation then it's indepentant of the times in which you read it."

Which sums up most of what I meant. The modesty thing is a fine example of this. If the command is telling me to dress modestly, the point is that I be modest and not whether I cover my head. I don't think its an excuse to ignore things like 'don't have sex outside of marriage' which still exists, but its my guideline for the obviously cultural bits about oxen, veils and such.

My Points of Discussions are:

1) Is the Christian Believer is a keeper of his/her Jewish (Spiritual) cousin’s doctrine/faith/traditions?? If it is so, then why?? If it is not so, then also why not??

2) How “one book-whole book, whole bible must be followed” zealots would reconcile those discordant teachings??

3) How much of OT teachings are derived from then prevalent culture of that ancient period (Cultural Context)??

4) How NT annulled (If it did) some of OT’s teaching??

I sort of talked about this, but more practically.. why would I be? I can respect it certainly or learn things from it, but why would I be the guardian of a faith that already has keepers (ie the Jews)? It would be redundant.



Already covered part of this, but there's no quick answer. Basically, Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecies and the Convenant, which brings up to modern Christianity and God's Law clarified for us by Jesus. I'm not going to re-type all the rest. >.>



The laws went -against- the prevaling cultures in most cases. Israel's religion followed one God instead of many, forbid common practices of the day including sex, religion and daily life. There was little in common with the religion or cultures of surrounding areas in Jewish Law/religion. This changed at some points, but the Bible always points that out as the beginning of an the end.

Arac: It's lucky then that we ended up on a pretty similar discussion without your prompt! Maybe try mentioning your intentions next time you start a thread?


Yes, I would still question them For two main reasons:

The Biblical texts that make up what we today refer to as 'the Bible' have been pared down by a political process over two millenia. It may be that the English translation of the words written down by John or Peter is incredibly accurate, but it doesn't help the fact that these are only telling the portion of the story that previous church figures have permitted us to read. To put it another way, we have the version of events as told by authorised figures, but that's like trying to have a debate by covering your ears every time some-one else talks: you can do it, but you only get the side of the story that you want to hear. You/the church might not always like what's in the other stories of Christ, but they are equally important documents as those authorised to go into the Bible.

The people who wrote the books of the Bible usually did so at least forty years after the time of Jesus, and sometimes they were collections of stories passed down orally. Memory is fallible, and the will of individuals to make their interpretations of Christ's life/teachings relevant to the budding church means that they will have put a very human perspective on the way that they told their stories.

This said, I agree with your sentiment that there are basic principles of Christianity that are very reasonable; however, I also think those basics are taught in one way or another by every other major world religion.

Lev. 20:13 says,

"‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Or consider the jubilee law (Lev. 25).

All rural land was supposed to be returned to the original families twice each century. Does this law legitimize a system of government-mandated wealth redistribution? Liberation theologians say it does. Does it authorize a government-mandated debt repudiation law in order to head off another Great Depression? A lot of conservative Christians say it does. Are both sides rights? Or neither?

I'm pretty sure that around there it also says that a man cannot share a bed with a woman for a week while she's on here period, under punishment of being excluded from the community, or something like that. Perhaps this is suggesting that we should stop police, emergency, and benefits support for any couples that share their beds all month through, the heathen scum!

I joke, but Leviticus 20:13 has caused many, many deathsacross the world, and still does, from the middle east to Jamaica and lots of other places besides.

So I can lay with women as I lay with men? *does relieved dance*

Unless she's on the blob, in which case you'll burn for all eternity.

</spam>

Actually, I'm pretty sure there's another bit of Leviticus about lesianism. It's a real spoil sport of a book.

*starts shaking fist, then stops* Wait a minute, I'm not Christian.

One name, Zoroastrianism. Precursor to all later monotheistic religions. It has been dated back to 6000 BC, and it may have even older roots.

Read through it. The similarities between it and the later Jewish and Christian faiths are astounding. For example:


That's obvious.


Burning Bush, anyone?


Sounds like certain aspects of Judaism to me.

Not really realted to this, but interesting nonetheless.

Shorter and more encompassing than the ten commandments I'd say. Makes them sound a bit like hippies but... *shrugs*

Also check out this. It details the great influence Zoroastrianism has had on western and eastern religions. That is to say Judaism and Hinduism to name but two.

Also worthy of note is this. It's basically a quick outline of the faith. Of special note is this, which I found interesting and perhaps pertains more to this conversation.



To my mind this shows a constant re-thinking of faith through the centuries. Different faiths have absorbed others and rewritten their own as culture and needs dictates. Religion is not a static and unmoving thing as its heads would have you believe. Instead it is an organic flowing thing which WILL adapt as time passes. Huge monumental changes have happened in the past why should today be any different? It's really quite fascinating.

Oh, and Frog? EVERYONE is Christian. It's just that there are good Christians and BAD christians.

At least that's what I keep having beaten over my head by the evangelicals.

Nakednes

: None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
7: The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8: The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9: The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10: The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11: The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
17: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18: Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19: Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
20: Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

Can I step in with my moderator hat on at this point, and ask what the point of this thread is? It seems to have been started by one person who's contribution has mainly been to cut'n'paste Bible scripture.

What are you trying to achieve here aldis? You mention disucssion points, then come back and post another unrelated chunk of the Bible with no explanation of what you hope to achieve.

In the first place place I have already declared the points...in the second place, discussion is a journey and it's "points" wd become clarified through progression....

Deep.

Aldis, a discussion can only be a group journey if anyone else is following you, otherwise it's just you wandering off by yourself. Currently we have no idea what you're trying to establish, and, if we don't understand what you're on about then that is not a discussion, it's a monologue and you can post those on a blog somewhere.

This is a forum. The name evokes its purpose, which is to discuss things that we all interested in. If you are the only one with any idea what this thread is about then there can be no discussion, just your discourse. Currently your posts seem to disturb conversations that were going in a reasonably productive direction. Either involve yourself with that discussion, clarify your intentions, or leave the concept alone until you are better prepared to approach it in a way that involves the views of others.

Cut and paste, cut and paste...it's easier than actually having to to think for yourself, non? Discussion is the keyword here. Presumably you (Aldis) have some insight into the chunks of the bible you've just posted here?
Could you share your viewpoints with us, so we're not all left here scrtaching our heads in confusion?
Ta.

Responding to Calantyr's post must wait til after sleep. @_@ Sleep is my friend.



I realize mockery is more fun, but there seems to be something of a practical basis for this rule. That was the age before 1) pad/tampons and 2) good hygiene. At least in some cases the houses were one room or small and all were without washing machines. Even with modern things that time of the month can be unpleasant and if I try to place myself back in a less convenient time without say, soap.. it only sounds moreso. >_o And the actual verse just says he'll be unclean for seven days if a he sleeps with a woman on her period, not that he's banished from the community. Judging by the Miriam episode, they seemed to say when people were outright banished.

Not that I'm defending people who violate God's laws on a much bigger level by ignoring that whole 'love thy neighbor as thyself bit. But we've established people can be rather idiotic. >_<

I agree with you Believe, there was a reasonable enough logic behind that law but it's not applicable to modern times. Equally, anal sex back then would have carried a high risk of infection, but with modern strong condoms and lubricant these risks have diminished significantly; however, many Christians feel the menstruation rule is not applicable to modern times but the homosexuality one is. That's the reason I raised the menstruation one, to compare something that used to be logical but is now accepted as out-dated with something that used to be logical but still applied as a justification for homophobic behaviour and attitudes.

*nods* Gotcha. Besides being a bit sleepy from graveyard, I wasn't sure if it was just pulling up more laws that seem silly out of context.

The homosexuality debate doesn't really stem from the OT, for that reason. At least from what I understand and have been taught. The OT is seen as further and collaborative proof, but if it were just Leviticus? Well, it could be argued as a cultural thing or Jewish Law pertaining to that culture. Where the problems come are the NT mentions and more importantly, that Jesus didn't mention it. If we accept Jesus is the Son of God for the purposes of debate/Christian mindset, that suggests he's well.. the Son of God. To say that Jesus somehow 'forgot' to mention any alternative for homosexuals to legitly marry and to be together suggests Jesus 'forgot', was prejudiced or didn't know what he was doing. The core beliefs of Christianity don't work with any of those options.

For the cultural arguments.. well, I've heard and debated some, but I'm not overly impressed thus far. Jesus (from the Biblical account), was a revolutionary. He spent time with prostitutes and tax collectors. He condemned the pharisee's publically, ransacked the temple and did things like treat women with respect. None of this evidence suggests that Jesus felt the need to follow popular culture or that he was afraid to go against it blatantly. So that would beg the question why he could ignore the culture's treatment of woman, the entire religious establishment, deal with Roman soliders and so on, but totally accept the prejudice against gay men and women.

The other one I've heard is that there were no modern gay couples around to be considered. I'm not really up to date on gay history, but I had the impression that they found lots more evidence and from many more era's than people want to believe. Israel was also being ruled by Rome at the time, which had some Greek influences and I think I've heard about the Romans having some gay or bi public figures? Not terribly sure about this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about Roman culture. I'm just not sure I buy the argument that gay people did not exist in ancient Rome/the ancient world in any applicable sense. Well, not buying it until I've got time to study it, that is.

Bah. I've already posted more than I meant to. So going to bed now.

Christianity also works on the theory that the people who wrote the Bible weren't influenced by their personal feelings either.

Let's not forget that Jesus was a man and a Jew. As such he was fallible and raised with Jewish, that's certainly got to influence his opinions. Even if he did say that homosexuality was okay I find it massively unlikely that his followers, being only human and also raised with Jewish law, would treasure it as one of his greatest teachings.

Hmm. Somewhat. A lot of the prophets tend to clarify that (thinking of Jonah, things Paul (I think) and such said), but certainly the men in the Bible were humans.



Just according to Christian beliefs here.. He's not just a man, but the Son of God. The whole religion is based on that fact and that he chose to die for our sins. If he's not the perfect Son of God, its all pointless and this discussion is moot in a lot of ways. So as a religious person, saying he's fallible isn't an option. If I had to pick between him being wrong and my being wrong, I'd lean toward myself anyway. >_o

Not treasuring it is different than not mentioning it. And that still doesn't jive neatly with the Bible, since we're debating it in the first place. Most of these men were matyred for teaching what the culture considered blasphemy. They could be thrown out of the synagogue, killed and worse. They taught contrary to the pharisee's and revamped or clarified sacred Jewish traditions because of what Jesus taught them. This makes me skeptical that everyone of the 12 ignored their master and taught that it was a sin and didn't argue with those that were doing the false teaching. The NT lists a public and divisive debate about whether people needed to be become Jews to be saved, which was a large issue at the time. If the disciples had been divided over sexuality, I would think there would be a fair chance of something being mentioned. My issue really comes from the all 12/no mention bit. If there was even one dissenting voice or -something- mentioned, it wouldn't seem so completely deliberate to me.

Edit- I really will catch up on the history of Judaism bit, just not this close to work. >_o

going back to aldis' point about reconciling contradictory factors in the bible.

Lets take, for example, what I feel to be, the most important commandment!

"Thou shalt not kill"

all the talk of interpretation that we have been having does not apply to this commandment. it is fairly involatile, and very succinct and to the point.

So how do we marry this up with

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18)

"‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (lev 20:13)

and I havent checked the authenticity of the next batch but...

If a son is stubborn or rebellious, he is to be stoned to death. - Deuteronomy 21:18-2
If a man hates his wife all he has to do is accuse her of not being a virgin when he married her. If her parents can't provide a bloody sheet to prove that she was a virgin on her wedding night, she is to be stoned to death. - Deuteronomy 22:13-21
If a woman is raped and doesn't cry out she is to be stoned to death. - Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If the daughter of a priest is promiscuous she is to be burnt to death. - Leviticus 21:9
If a man has intercourse with a woman while she is on her menstrual cycle they are both to be put to death. - Leviticus 20:18
Homosexuals are to be put to death. - Leviticus 20:13
Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death. - Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16
Those who don't get circumcised are to be put to death. - Genesis 17:14
Anyone who works on the sabbath is to be put to death. - Exodus 31:14-17
Offering sacrifices that aren't in keeping with God's strict orders will get you killed. - Leviticus 10:1-2
Butchering an animal without letting God get a taste of the blood is a crime punishable by death. - Leviticus 17:3-4
If someone commits blasphemy against God they are to be put to death. - Leviticus 24:16
Anyone who studies astrology is to be stoned to death. - Deuteronomy 17:2-5
If someone tries to get you to go to a different church, they are to be stoned to death without pity or mercy. - Deuteronomy 13:6-11
If the inhabitants of a city begin to worship other gods they are to be slaughtered and their city burned to the ground. - Deuteronomy 13:12-17
Witches are to be killed. - Exodus 22:18
Cursing your parents will get you put to death. - Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9

(all taken from http://www.geocities.com/llfptfu/bloody.html which is admitedly a little anti christian)

Errrrrr I think I rest my case.

The issues most important here are…

Firstly, We have to acknowledge the Jewish inheritance of Christian belief systems…

It seemes Christians took a pick and choose approach to OT in many places. Consider the issues like Dietary Laws, Sabbath Days and Polygamy as stated in OT

Secondly, the clashes and inconsistencies between the two systems, where exactly the great divide begun?? Is it Greco-Roman Influence?? The revolution of “Saints” and Monks?? all those Chusrch Councils?? Definitely The Enlightenment of post Middle Age and Reformation Helped the church to change and adapt…but both Western Christian Churches (Namely Byzantine Orthodox and Roman Catholic) definitely become detached from Jewish/OT roots from the beginning.

Masses may be illiterate but Church Fathers surely read OT?? Were not they perplexed?? Did not they try to explain things in a more cogent way?? Even among themselves???

And Lastly we must consider, the clashes of old cultures with moderns mores…namely freedom of sexual orientations, equality of all persons in a society and the inclusive, permissive nature of society against the authoritarian, hierarchical, traditional ones…

Supposedly it is "THOU SHALT NOT KILL! EVER! Well go on then, it's alright in these circumstances."

Jesus was supposed to have broken the neccessity for the old laws with his coming. Instead you were to follow his new teachings. At face value this means throwing out the Old Testament and simply embracing what he said and taught. That boils down to simply "Be nice to each other."

However later contributers to the New Testament decided (apparently with the aid of the spirit of the Lord. Just look at the election of some of the Popes in the past to get my take on the infalliability of that) that actually there WERE vast parts of the Old Testament that needed to be followed. So, y'know, Jesus either just wasn't very clear about the whole thing or he liked telling porkies.

Ignoring the whole Gentile thing whereby they do not need to be circumcised because they arn't Jews and thereby proving that the laws are actually customs and not the inviolable word of the Lord... but oh well.

Edit: There have been numerous councils of churches since Jesus' times. The Church has never been one formal all encompassing thing. In the centuries after his death it seemed like every other church had its own take on what the correct teachings were.
Many of these were drawn together either by diplomacy, political expediency, threat of outside influence, or the mighty tool that is the sword of the 'True Faithful'.

Many of the tenents of the faith that we consider its backbones were not developed until later (think the humanity/divinity of Jesus, or the Holy Trinity). Infact many of them were compromises at the time. Many were due to cultural and legal boundries (think Patriarch of Constantinople and the Roman See). Of course all these changes were said to have been done under the guidance of the Lord, so their final outcome is accurate.

Of course you could then point out that the choice of the formal date of Christmas and Easter were actually chosen to fit in with existing pagan rituals in order to gain more converts so it undermines that... but again oh well.

Just a quick point here, because I've got lots of stuff to do:

I think the usual answer is that where the NT contradicts the OT then it's considered by Christians to be an update of the old rules. Jesus's ones over-ruling the earlier ones. Where there is no contradiction there's no problem. If issues aren't addressed in the NT then things get more tricky, and then it seems to become a bit of a point of personal preference about whether you want to adopt the views of the OT or not.

If the highest command of God is to love, as Jesus said, then its ambiguous enough that homosexual couples can say they are following the first rule while not doing so well on lesser ones, but other people can claim that they have a sinful love, which isn't real love at all... Which is a load of tosh if you ask me. Also, in my opinion, people should use the word 'tosh' more often.

Quite a lot of changes have been made to the New Testament and the Bible as a whole over time as different groups deleted large tracts that they considered irrelevant or false. People ignore biblical laws that they find too restrictive all the time, which is becoming more common and accepted in today's world. Different people believe in different parts. Some people say that the Old Testament is completely false except for the creation of the world. Others say that the New Testament isn't worth the paper it's printed on and that Revelations was a drug-induced nightmare. It all depends on what religion you follow and which laws you don't much care for.



Finally someone who knows about the pagan festival thing! I've tried to explain it to several people who insist that it's a coincidence, which is a load of tosh. Time for an informational lecture about something I've actually researched! The actual original dates are pretty disputed, so I won't bother trying to pick some. Feel free to tune out now if you don't care.
Christmas was moved to the Celtic winter solstice festival. People celebrated it by telling stories and lighting lots of fires and candles to celebrate the rebirth of the sun. When the church moved Jesus's birthday to December 25th, the Celts added him to the celebrations as sort of another part of the rebirth. The solstice belonged to Brigid, the goddess of smithcraft, healing, and poetry. She was associated with fire and light. The conversion didn't bother the Celts much, as they just added some new names to the original festival.
Easter was moved to the Celtic spring equinox festival of Beltaine (or Beltane), which was a fertility festival to celebrate everything blooming and growing. Married couples jumped over fires to get luck for conceiving a child. Everyone else (the married couples occasionally joined in) ran out into the woods and had sex with whoever they wanted to to honor the mother goddess of the earth. They came back in the morning with flowers. As Beltaine was a celebration of life, putting Jesus in was simple. The earth was alive and he was alive, so there wasn't much bother.
The Celts continued their festivals with Christianity sort of poked in at the edge for quite a long time until Puritans banned the pagan things for being heathen and indecent. There's still shadows of the Celtic festivals if you look at the symbolism a bit. For example, we have the Easter Bunny because rabbits are fertile and Beltaine was the celebration of fertility.
That was all a tad off-topic, but it was fun.
By the way, aldis, it's truly not necessary to ask lots of questions in a row with two question marks after each one. It grows a bit wearing after a while. We may also want to decide the most important information for ourselves.

I think that there was a reasonably accurate date worked out for the birth of Christ using the appearence of a visible comet in the sky as an interpretaion of the Star of Bethlehem. I think it's supposed to be around October 7th, or something like that.

Astarael, you'll probably find more people on this forum are aware of the Christian renaming of pagan festivals than are not aware of it!

Here's one most people don't (currently) know: St Paul's Cathedral in London was built on the site of a temple to the goddess Diana, and fertility rituals were carried out there into the late 1800s, with people still hugging to pillars to help them have children even in the 1920s. Sometimes the skin of religion is pretty thin; you don't have to scratch deep to find older things.

I think NT especially gospels, being a lifetime effort (If we ignore here the argument of gnostic apocrypha that creeped in gospels or how much time had passed before those gospels actually were put down on paper) to describe Christ's earthly life didnot spend enough time to codify the faith based Law....

If I get your meaning, you are saying that they spend too long describing the life of Jesus to be a basis for law because not enough attention is paid to the subject?

Also, you'll generally find that gnostic texts have crept out of the Bible! I'm not sure why you consider the time of writing to be important to the gospels. Certainly most of them were written considerably after the time of Christ, the closest text we know of being the Gospel of Thomas, which is considered gnostic and was removed from the Bible (probably by Emperor Constantine).

[spam warning]



Froggy, we're not even allowed to get naked. With practically anyone. I'm glad I'm a godless heathen

[/spam]

Most likely. There's a greater concentration of smart and curious people than there is at my school or amongst most people I know. A few friends are willing to have interesting discussiong like this, but I tend to get the "someone in a postion of authority said this is true, so of course they're right" reaction rather too much. I have several friends who follow the Church rather slavishly and get all stiff and disapproving when I mention the pagan festival thing. Hence my frustration with the whole subject and the occasional lecture when I find people who *are* willing to keep open minds.
Anyway, the whole nakedness passage seems rather sensible to me. If a man saw too much of a woman's body (they were very proper, so this could mean a knee) in Victorian times, it was considered sexual and you could be forced to marry if you weren't siblings or very close relatives. I understand that this happened sometimes amongst cousins. The passage could be sort of a guide for preventing incest or marriages among relatives that were too close. Chastity before marriage was important, and seeing nakedness was sometimes viewed as a sexual act. The verses make a fair bit of sense and probably prevented some fairly nasty genetic accidents.

But the Victorians got most of their morals by applying Christian values in a manner that was perhaps a little too strict. The irony was that this just created a whole massively kinky underground that didn't exist to such an extent previously. The advent of the middle classes meant that you had people (mainly men) with money to spend on entertainment, combine this with a massively repressed mainstream society and you might as well start transferring all disposal income over to pornography, vice, and drugs. Oops, I guess the application of the Bible didn't work out too well there...

Argh. I leave for a couple days and I get behind! *flails*

Calantyr, researching for a reply to you now. About surrounding cultures, that is. I haven't been much in a researching frame of mindt his week. >_o



If I try to kill you, are you saying its wrong to not fight back, even if it kills me? If it is right to kill me in self-defense if you must, does that make it right to shoot people walking down the street for no reason? Of course not. Because of context. Men were not supposed to murder according to whim. It was supposed to be a last resort when needed to protect the society. You may still think its wrong, but is not remotely the same as far as intent goes. I consider the death penalty different in practice than a serial killer killing women, allowing for the arguments of whether the death penalty is a proper or moral response.



Yeah. Like you said, sinful choices can be made even with love, such as premarital sex. The Bible makes it clear that those choices aren't healthy/approved by God, as much as people might love each other. And yes, I'm using Biblical standards for reference for my post. >.>



Mind posting your sources for that, please? I want to be sure we're even debating the same thing before I try to respond.

And I knew Christmas and Easter were originally pagan feasts. And the history of Halloween, too. I just celebrate them anyway.



Mind specifying what chapters/verses you're referring too?



I'm not sure I disagree with you. I think that a lot of the laws (barring the ten commandments) were meant for Israel in that time and place. I could be wrong, but as for example the Temple no longer exists, it would be awfully hard for me to sacrifice there. Thats not mentioning all the artifacts the priests would no longer have access to and so on. I certainly hope salvation does not rely solely on that.

As for the circumsion bit, there at least on example dating back to the OT that God did not require gentiles to become Jews or to be circumsized to believe. Naaman is the most prominent I remember. Rahab and Ruth were woman, so.. yeah. I'm not quite following you on why the new convenant not including a command makes it no longer a command, though. If sacrifices were no longer needed with the coming of the Messiah, it could quite easily be argued that circumsion could not purify/seperate in the same sense it had. Thats not even bringing the Gentile bit. To my understanding, the Jewish Christians often continued that and many of their customs like Purim and whatnot.



I've read different time estimates on that from sites protestant and non. Mind shooting me the source you're quoting from?



Applying it about as well as Republicans do today does not count. God did mean for people to enjoy sex, I'm not sure why the Church sometimes has such a hard time remembering that. Bah.

Jesus railed against Pharisees, he railed against money lenders…he railed against animal sacrifices…(at least he set free those sacrificial pigeons)…but he said that he is following the Old Code…at least in most cases he did set out what the New Code (if there is to be one) is…except a very unclear idea of love….

Which everybody took their own liberty to interpret….to their own interests….

The Victorians were a bit loony, (think corsets) and the kinky underground did spring up and cause problems. However, the verses were probably useful in Israel because they suited the context of the times. Nudity to them probably meant showing off various private bits, not ankles. Interpreted in the original time for which the laws were written, they were probably quite sensible. It seems to be mainly an old-fashioned warning against incest. Useful idea, I think. The Bible gets interpreted and applied in lots of different ways, and some of them are simply idiotic.
Aldis- you are on ellipsis restriction as of now.

Did those Buybull thumping family stalwarts got it all wrong about Christian Love and Family Values?? Did really Christianity really advocated for Family Values and love??

Luke 14:26

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be my disciple."