Look who's side God is no now.

durangodawood · Thursday at 9:06 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
No, so the polyester/cotton blend is still a big no-no lol

But, part of the issue (which you may already be touching on), is that "just be nice and love everybody" - as somewhat vague abstracted concepts themselves, still leave a lot open to individual interpretations.

Peoples' various definitions of "Love" span the spectrum of:
Tolerance of everything to the point of enabling bad behavior <-> The concept that people call "Tough love"

Within some of the progressive talking points of "Jesus just said to love everyone and be nice to everyone" (some progressives, obviously not all), the logical conclusion of that thought pattern is basically "The Purge" because within the context they invoke it, anyone can do everything they want, nothing's off limits, and everyone else has a duty to just let them do it with a smile.

No, progressives do not sanction the abuse, right up to murder, of other people in their interpretation of "love your neighbor".

My sense is that one of Jesus' revolutionary notions is that humans were ready to replace blind obedience to a list of rules with an actual change of heart. That will inevitably make it harder to judge one another. But not impossible.

ThatRobGuy said:
The issue on the other side of the fence is that the "live & let live" love, and the "tough love" is often defined by which "sins" they, themselves, have the easiest time abstaining from. I've touch on it before, one example would be the difference in reaction from Southern Baptists on the topics of Homosexuality and Obesity.

They've obviously take a hard line on the former (based on the fact that the OT and the NT both refer to it as an abomination), however, there's a bit of the "well, live & let live, it's all good, we all fall short" mentality taken toward the latter (despite the fact that the bible equates gluttony with idolatry)

That's why it's best to keep religion and public policy separate (to beat a dead horse), because every time it's invoked, it's almost always a "The rules it lists that I agree with should be enforced with an iron fist...but for the ones I don't agree with...meh, Jesus said nobody is perfect and that we should just love and forgive everyone, so who am I to judge?"

It's just simply not practical to try to run a society that way.

Religion clearly should not be explicitly part of public policy. But religion is the framework where lots of voting people establish their worldviews. I dont see that you or I can change that. You seem to thank that when we appeal to a persons religion to change voting decisions that it reinforces their faith in a way that can damage other political interests of ours.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 9:22 AM

durangodawood said:
Religion clearly should not be explicitly part of public policy. But religion is the framework where lots of voting people establish their worldviews. I dont see that you or I can change that. You seem to thank that when we appeal to a persons religion to change voting decisions that it reinforces their faith in a way that can damage other political interests of ours.

A person's religious views can certainly influence a policy preference, but the court precedent of the "Lemon Test" defines the guardrails for that. - which I believe the judge penning the majority opinion on that case referred to it as a 3-legged stool.

In order to be constitutional, a law/order/etc... has to meet the following standards

-- It can't be overtly favoring one religion over another, or religion over non-religion
-- It has to serve a secular purpose
-- It has to serve a compelling purpose

So for instance, if a person's faith is the reason why they're proposing a bill to crack down on stealing, it's not a problem, because stopping people from stealing is an interest that's both secular and compelling.

With regards to arguments and bill proposals against things like gay marriage, they don't meet that same criteria
-- "The bible says it's bad" isn't secular
-- "I'm not religious, but I'm just weirded out by 2 dudes together" may be secular, but it's not compelling

durangodawood · Thursday at 10:07 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
A person's religious views can certainly influence a policy preference, but the court precedent of the "Lemon Test" defines the guardrails for that. - which I believe the judge penning the majority opinion on that case referred to it as a 3-legged stool.

I thought we were talking about "the discussion" and what argumentative tactics work and which can backfire when appealing to articles of a person's faith. The actual crafting of legislation is a whole other topic.

ThatRobGuy said:
In order to be constitutional, a law/order/etc... has to meet the following standards

-- It can't be overtly favoring one religion over another, or religion over non-religion
-- It has to serve a secular purpose
-- It has to serve a compelling purpose

So for instance, if a person's faith is the reason why they're proposing a bill to crack down on stealing, it's not a problem, because stopping people from stealing is an interest that's both secular and compelling.

With regards to arguments and bill proposals against things like gay marriage, they don't meet that same criteria
-- "The bible says it's bad" isn't secular
-- "I'm not religious, but I'm just weirded out by 2 dudes together" may be secular, but it's not compelling

A long as we're changing tracks.... yes thats pretty much my understanding of the principles. But I think those are fading in favor of whatever a complicit judiciary will let you can get away with.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 10:25 AM

durangodawood said:
I thought we were talking about "the discussion" and what argumentative tactics work and which can backfire when appealing to articles of a person's faith. The actual crafting of legislation is a whole other topic.

You'd mentioned "religion is the framework where lots of voting people establish their worldviews", so that's what I was replying to there.

...but I don't even see the types of rhetorical devices in question as "appealing to their religion" in most cases. Because it's almost never appealing to the religion (as a whole) in a broader context. It's almost always hand-picked verses to hang over their heads about a very specific topic.

The "crux" of the Christian religion is basically "Everyone is born with sin, but Jesus who's the son of God, came down and died for our sins and by accepting that premise and believing in it, you've punched your ticket when you get to the pearly gates"

I don't know that I've ever heard that concept invoked in a political context.

It's almost always more of a

"Ha! look, see what it says about XYZ right here in this very specific verse I googled...If you're going to call yourself a Christian, then why aren't you voting for/against XYZ???"

rjs330 · Friday at 12:02 AM

durangodawood said:
For sure they had a purpose. I mean, they werent included in certain books of the Bible for nothing. But some of them were clearly revised and overridden in later books. And others Christians seem to quite sensibly disregard of their own volition.

They are still valid, all of them, in order to show us how we fall short.

But Jesus was perfect and fulfilled it all. No one "overrode" them. Christians put their faith in Christ, not themselves. He is their righteousness, not their own actions.

durangodawood said:
I dont see how the eating of shellfish, for example, shows a person falling short.

Its not about what YOU see or what YOU believe. It is what is required of you in order to have a relationship with God.

ThatRobGuy · Friday at 6:50 AM

durangodawood said:
I dont see how the eating of shellfish, for example, shows a person falling short.

With regards to some of the OT dietary rules (that Jewish people still follow), I think the concept of "the God of the margins" applies to a degree. Where anything that couldn't be adequately understood for why it was causing an negative outcome, was attributed to "this is a sign that it's God's will that we shouldn't do this"

The explanation I've heard anthropologists give:
We know now that pigs can carry trichinosis (which is especially common in warm climates without refrigeration -- which certainly would have described their situation), the same applies to shellfish. That certainly wasn't well understood back then.

Back then, all they were able to observe is "whoa! someone ate pig, and 3 days later they were convulsing on the ground, vomiting, and their eyes swelled up" -- to bronze age people, a person with trichinosis would probably look like someone who had some sort of mystical curse placed on them.

...but like many things, certain practices become traditions after a period of time, and they just stick with it.

durangodawood · Friday at 8:18 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
With regards to some of the OT dietary rules (that Jewish people still follow), I think the concept of "the God of the margins" applies to a degree. Where anything that couldn't be adequately understood for why it was causing an negative outcome, was attributed to "this is a sign that it's God's will that we shouldn't do this"

The explanation I've heard anthropologists give:
We know now that pigs can carry trichinosis (which is especially common in warm climates without refrigeration -- which certainly would have described their situation), the same applies to shellfish. That certainly wasn't well understood back then.

Back then, all they were able to observe is "whoa! someone ate pig, and 3 days later they were convulsing on the ground, vomiting, and their eyes swelled up" -- to bronze age people, a person with trichinosis would probably look like someone who had some sort of mystical curse placed on them.

...but like many things, certain practices become traditions after a period of time, and they just stick with it.

Of course. Everyone* is familiar with the idea of the sanctification of, basically, safety standards, in a largely pre scientific world.

*everyone-ish

durangodawood · Friday at 8:30 AM

rjs330 said:
They are still valid, all of them, in order to show us how we fall short.

But Jesus was perfect and fulfilled it all. No one "overrode" them. Christians put their faith in Christ, not themselves. He is their righteousness, not their own actions.

I dont think so. When Jesus declared all food to be clean, that literally is the opposite of what came before.

Its not unclean foods are still unclean as told in olden times, but you shant worry because of your faith in me. No, its all foods are clean.

rjs330 said:
Its not about what YOU see or what YOU believe. It is what is required of you in order to have a relationship with God.

It is important. If YOU believe various foods are still unclean, how can that not affect you if you partake of them? Or if you dont partake, then you go through life vigilant of various dietary restrictions. But if YOU do believe that, as Jesus said, all foods are clean, then you can dispense with that whole issue as a matter which might weigh on your conscience.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 8:36 AM

durangodawood said:
I dont think so. When Jesus declared all food to be clean, that literally is the opposite of what came before.

Its not unclean foods are still unclean as told in olden times, but you shant worry because of your faith in me. No, its all foods are clean.

durangodawood said:
It is important. If YOU believe various foods are still unclean, how can that not affect you if you partake of them? Or if you dont partake, then you go through life vigilant of various dietary restrictions. But if YOU do believe that, as Jesus said, all foods are clean, then you can dispense with that whole issue as a matter which might weigh on yor conscience.

Yes.................but, there are other contexts about food for even Gentile Christians which didn't just disappear simply because it was 'reported' that Jesus said "such and such." Christians still shouldn't be eating 'blood,' according to the earliest of Church teachings, with various mis-calibrations in interpretation of what either Peter or Paul or MARK were thought to have said notwithstanding.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 8:43 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
With regards to some of the OT dietary rules (that Jewish people still follow), I think the concept of "the God of the margins" applies to a degree. Where anything that couldn't be adequately understood for why it was causing an negative outcome, was attributed to "this is a sign that it's God's will that we shouldn't do this"

The explanation I've heard anthropologists give:
We know now that pigs can carry trichinosis (which is especially common in warm climates without refrigeration -- which certainly would have described their situation), the same applies to shellfish. That certainly wasn't well understood back then.

Back then, all they were able to observe is "whoa! someone ate pig, and 3 days later they were convulsing on the ground, vomiting, and their eyes swelled up" -- to bronze age people, a person with trichinosis would probably look like someone who had some sort of mystical curse placed on them.

...but like many things, certain practices become traditions after a period of time, and they just stick with it.

Which specific anthropologists are giving these answers? Not that I think they're wrong in all respects, but I need references.

durangodawood · Friday at 8:46 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Yes.................but, there are other contexts about food for even Gentile Christians which didn't just disappear simply because it was 'reported' that Jesus said "such and such." Christians still shouldn't be eating 'blood,' according to the earliest of Church teachings, with various mis-calibrations in interpretation of what either Peter or Paul or MARK were thought to have said notwithstanding.

Sure, if you say that there are a few key exceptions to "all foods are clean", then I believe you. But for the most part, we see various ancient rules about food being simply nullified here.

The larger point is that some Christians are deeply attached to a fixed notion of morality across all eras described in the Bible. Morality being the description of how humans should behave. Others see the Bible describing an evolving understanding of morality.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 8:49 AM

durangodawood said:
Sure, if you say that there are a few key exceptions to "all foods are clean", then I believe you. But for the most part, we see various ancient rules about food being simply nullified here.

The larger point is that some Christians are deeply attached to a fixed notion of morality across all eras described in the Bible. Morality being the description of how humans should behave. Others see the Bible describing an evolving understanding of morality.

Someone, somewhere is wrong, then, aren't they?

durangodawood · Friday at 8:55 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Someone, somewhere is wrong, then, aren't they?

Yes, of course. Certain various understandings of things in the Bible are not reconcilable with each other.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 9:00 AM

durangodawood said:
Yes, of course. Certain various understandings of things in the Bible are not reconcilable with each other.

Do you mean like the fact that we don't see Matthew according the same implicit interpretation about Mark's apparent comment (or some later scribe's addition) regarding Jesus' declaring that "all foods are clean"? And Luke? Well, Luke leaves it out altogether.

durangodawood · Friday at 9:08 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Do you mean like the fact that we don't see Matthew according the same implicit interpretation about Mark's apparent comment (or some later scribe's addition) regarding Jesus' declaring that "all foods are clean"? And Luke? Well, Luke leaves it out altogether.

I dont have an answer for how to reconcile all foods are clean with every jot of the old law remains.

Well, I have answers, but they wouldnt satisfy Christians who hold that every single line of the Bible is equally authentic and divinely intended.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 9:12 AM

durangodawood said:
I dont have an answer for how to reconcile all foods are clean with every jot of the old law remains.

Well, I have answers, but they wouldnt satisfy Christians who hold that every single line of the Bible is equally authentic and divinely intended.

Go ahead, lay your answers on me. I'm not one of "those" Christians who assumes a whole lot about very much.

durangodawood · Friday at 9:20 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Go ahead, lay your answers on me. I'm not one of "those" Christians who assumes a whole lot about very much.

I am not a Bible scholar, just an interested layman. Ive heard that Matthew especially was concerned about his very Jewish audience. They were extremely anxious about the prospect of their rules based understanding of correct behavior being upended. Just imagine it. So he may have thrown them a little bridge to help cross over.

2PhiloVoid · Friday at 9:58 AM

durangodawood said:
I am not a Bible scholar, just an interested layman. Ive heard that Matthew especially was concerned about his very Jewish audience. They were extremely anxious about the prospect of their rules based understanding of correct behavior being upended. Just imagine it. So he my have thrown them a little bridge to help cross over.

Perhaps. But perhaps not. But even if we take the passage in Mark chapter 7 in an isolated fashion and attempt to interpret it, it becomes difficult to see that Mark's narrative ends up somehow undercutting the essential underlying directives of "the Law."

ThatRobGuy · Friday at 9:59 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Which specific anthropologists are giving these answers? Not that I think they're wrong in all respects, but I need references.

The one that stands out would be Marvin Harris

Specifically, in his book "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture" and then the subsequent follow-up work "Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture"

He touches on how a few of the various religions employ certain food avoidance, and makes a fairly compelling case for why those reasons are often born out of practicality (even if for reasons people in that era didn't fully understand) and how they end up getting dovetailed into the prevailing religious practices of the region.

For example, he also touched on why the Hindu taboo around eating cows arose less from religious symbolism, and more from cultural materialism.

durangodawood · Friday at 10:05 AM

2PhiloVoid said:
Perhaps. But perhaps not. But even if we take the passage in Mark chapter 7 in an isolated fashion and attempt to interpret it, it becomes difficult to see that Mark's narrative ends up somehow undercutting the essential underlying directives of "the Law."

Its not difficult at all. First of all, its clear: all foods are clean. Second, Jesus explains why all foods are clean.

Sometimes when you have a new fact dangling there in isolation we get suspicious. But fact plus explanation? That cant be dismissed except by invoking nuclear options like inauthenticity.

Look who's side God is no now.

re Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

re Member

Critically Copernican

Critically Copernican

re Member

Critically Copernican

re Member

Critically Copernican

re Member

Critically Copernican

re Member

Critically Copernican

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Similar threads