No, really, not another thread that dissolves into a discussion about how Christians decide which laws were "ritual" or "holiness code" and which were "moral code" and how some make the list and others blah blah blah blah. Just drop it.
Is it my fault that we never receive an answer to the question?
If someone is going to tell me that some rules are rules and some rules aren't rules, I'd like to know why that is the case.
The same sort of question was asked again a little while back.
Can you just explain, in as simple terms as possible, why wearing clothes of mixed materials, eating shellfish, approaching women who are on their period are okay for Christians, and homosexuality isn't. I'm a bit confused.
These are issues in the OT law. The answer Godschild87 gave is correct but I would add that as Christians we follow Jesus Christ’s fulfilment of the law and in that fulfilment, whether others can see the point or not, Jesus NT teaching says it is ok to eat all foods and it doesn’t matter what we wear, having sex during menstruation is not what Christians mostly do, and same sex relations are always error. This is all supported by what NT scripture says. But why pose such a question? It could have said why are theft, murder, incest and homosexuality wrong for Christians, after all these are all OT prohibitions. The question is designed to imply homosexual practice is not wrong by comparing it with OT laws which Jesus fulfilled, rather than comparing it with the other errors that exist in both OT and NT covenants.
The same sort of question was asked again a little while back. These are issues in the OT law. The answer Godschild87 gave is correct but I would add that as Christians we follow Jesus Christ’s fulfilment of the law and in that fulfilment, whether others can see the point or not, Jesus NT teaching says it is ok to eat all foods and it doesn’t matter what we wear, having sex during menstruation is not what Christians mostly do, and same sex relations are always error. This is all supported by what NT scripture says. But why pose such a question? It could have said why are theft, murder, incest and homosexuality wrong for Christians, after all these are all OT prohibitions. The question is designed to imply homosexual practice is not wrong by comparing it with OT laws which Jesus fulfilled, rather than comparing it with the other errors that exist in both OT and NT covenants.
No, I don't think that is the implication. The implication is that the continuation from OT to NT to today seems to be somewhat arbitrary, and no body seems willing to give a conclusive answer to either:
1. Explain that it isn't arbitrary, or
2. Defend why some laws are arbitrarily dropped while others are maintained.
I will ask you the same question I've asked anyone else: why does it need to be in the Bible to be accurate?
I find that question a bit odd. Isn´t it the the Christians who insist that the bible is authoritative? If we need another source for to explain to us which biblical laws are in effect and which are not, we could skip all the bible talk and move on to this meta-authoritative source right away. So which is this superiour source that puts the bible in perspective?
__________________
Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
To nolongerhome, Thanks for the response. Well of course I do see that implication, though what you propose it perfectly sound.
The implication is that the continuation from OT to NT to today seems to be somewhat arbitrary, and no body seems willing to give a conclusive answer to either:
1. Explain that it isn't arbitrary, or 2. Defend why some laws are arbitrarily dropped while others are maintained.
Christians wouldn’t really see this as arbitary, for Christians it makes sense in line with God’s heart and plan as a whole, holistically from the Biblical testimony. As far as others are concerned, including yourself it obviously is arbitary, but what God sees as violations and errors isn’t necessarily what you would see them as. For someone who doesn’t believe the Biblical testimony of God I can’t see why it would matter. Nonetheless through the Holy Spirit and what Christ has done, diet and clothing are no longer sacrifices and things like theft adultery and same sex relations are always contrary to God’s purposes.
Christians wouldn’t really see this as arbitary, for Christians it makes sense in line with God’s heart and plan as a whole, holistically from the Biblical testimony. As far as others are concerned, including yourself it obviously is arbitary, but what God sees as violations and errors isn’t necessarily what you would see them as. For someone who doesn’t believe the Biblical testimony of God I can’t see why it would matter. Nonetheless through the Holy Spirit and what Christ has done, diet and clothing are no longer sacrifices and things like theft adultery and same sex relations are always contrary to God’s purposes.
So, I read this as: You know what laws are arbitrary, and which are not because you have a feeling, or because you just know?
Have I got that right? What do you suppose influences those feelings?
__________________ "WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions."
Alaska Statue 13.52, signed by Governor Sarah Palin
"...my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
I find that question a bit odd. Isn´t it the the Christians who insist that the bible is authoritative? If we need another source for to explain to us which biblical laws are in effect and which are not, we could skip all the bible talk and move on to this meta-authoritative source right away. So which is this superiour source that puts the bible in perspective?
Christ himself, who says; 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life'.
Note, he does NOT say that the Bible is any of these things, let alone all of them.
Mistaking the Bible for Christ is the single biggest failing of modern Christianity. A Bibliocentric faith will always get bogged down in one verse against another. A Christocentric faith never can.
God; Father, Son and Holy Ghost does NOT delegate his authority to the Bible to even the smallest extent. He retains it, and it is he who we must ultimately answer to. If we fail to follow Christ, and to reveal his love in the world, it will be no defence to say that we were too busy arguing with our brothers and sisters about which is primary; faith or works.
No, I don't think that is the implication. The implication is that the continuation from OT to NT to today seems to be somewhat arbitrary, and no body seems willing to give a conclusive answer to either:
1. Explain that it isn't arbitrary, or
2. Defend why some laws are arbitrarily dropped while others are maintained.
Here is the law, summarised by Paul for Christians:
The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Against such things there is no law.
Living in the Spirit, any one of us may choose to follow Torah or not, as we prefer. Such a choice honours God, if we take it, but is not essential. What is essential is to follow Christ, and to allow him to bring forth the fruit of his Spirit in our lives.
If by following Torah, or in any other expression of our faith we fail to bring forth the above fruit, we are wasting our time. Worse still if we reveal fruit of the sinful nature, which Paul lists as: sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissention, factions, envy, drunkenness, orgies and the like.
In other words, the tree is known by its fruit. Or, as Paul goes on to say, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything: what counts is a new creation.
Christ himself, who says; 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life'.
Note, he does NOT say that the Bible is any of these things, let alone all of them.
That´s all nice and dandy, but you have a slight circularity problem there. Everything we learn about Christ and his opinions is in the bible.
__________________
Why I call myself a „non-believer“ or „atheist“:
I can´t relate to any of the god concepts I´m familiar with so far.
Either I´m not convinced by the concept, or
– although not having a problem with the worldview itself -
I see no reason to call one of its elements „God“:
There are already more precise, more common, less loaded and less likely to be misunderstood terms for these elements.
E.g. I prefer to call nature „nature“, the universe „universe“ and everything „everything“.
Linear Mode
