I was once told by a Christian that they believed the United States should go back to either outlawing and jailing homosexuals (a crime prior to the Stonewall Riots and Gay Rights Marches of the 70s). Another added that it should not only be a crime, but should be punishable by death, following Mosaic Law in Leviticus.
When asked about calls to also enforce, say, stoning disobedient children and those who work on the Sabbath, I was told that those laws were of a different category, which we are no longer under, while the sexual ones we are. It makes it rather confusing, then, to try to know which ones are still in play. Commandment : You shall have no other gods before me. Active. Commandment: You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Not so much. One can hear "o m g" said in common conversation, from peppered in young girls' gossip, to adults, without even thinking about whether it is right or wrong. Men with often use "God" with "damn it" or say "Jesus" as a swear, often to demonstrate the masculinity of being vulgar.
Commandment: Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy.
God is said to have rested on the 7th day, and one is told to do the same. However, does anyone go to confession, asking to be forgiven for working at the mall on the Sabbath? Does "a day of rest" even register in modern day Christian society? And of those who try to honor it, isn't "resting" by going to a restaurant, shopping or a movie make someone else break the commandment that you are trying to follow?
When discussing the passage of "Let he without sin cast the first stone" is used to chide someone from condemning another, I hear a warped interpretation from some Christians. The Pharisees catch a woman committing adultery. They bring her to Jesus, and say that according to Scripture she should be stoned to death, and seek Jesus' approval. If he agrees, then he violates Roman law of murder. If he disagrees, he violates God's law, and Scripture, and proves himself not the Son of God.
Christ draws in the sand (possibly the sins of the accusers), and says at last, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Reluctantly, being humbled, the drop their stones, and walk away in shame. Christ says, "where are those who accuse you?" She says, "They have all gone." He says, "Neither do I condemn you. Your sins have been forgiven. Go and sin no more."
The point that some Christians see from this story is that Jesus told her to stop sinning. That is the main point, they argue. I point out that Jesus was without sin. Jesus could have cast the first stone, and didn't. They counter, "well, maybe he wasn't a witness to the adultery. You have to be caught in the act. Also, there must be at least 2 or 3 witnesses." In other words, had Jesus caught the woman, they are arguing, he would have stone her to death, following Mosaic Law (and probably arrested for murder under Roman Law.) They point out that he commanded her to stop sinning, and that is all that it is about.
However, I simply disagree. First, the men accusing the woman had no intention of serving God by stoning her to death. They were concerned with entrapping Jesus, even if that meant that they would have to kill a woman to do it. It is also important to point out that he said "Neither do I condemn you", because he forgave her sin. He came to the earth to save it, John says, not condemn it.
When I hear people digging into Mosaic Law to justify execution of all homosexuals, I have to ask whether it is because they want to serve God and follow the bible, or because they want to justify their murderous hatred. This is further supported by the same group ignoring other death penalties.
And what of the person that goes out into this world in mercy? How does one resolve, for example, what they see as immoral, where homosexuals are hung or beheaded in the Middle East, following the Quran, and thier own text which says: "Man shall not lie with man as with a woman; it is an abomination. Their blood is upon them. Surely they shall be put to death"?
The easiest, and most common, is to ignore it. Unfortunately, nonChristians will ask you to explain the justification of, say, Elijah calling out to God when children teased him disrepectfully, and God sending she-bears to maul them.
How do you resolve such things?
To me, it seems that it is not God who changes, but man's understanding of God, and what God wants. Man went from understanding that God demanding sacrifice, and observing of law, to understanding that God is merciful, and wants man to be happy, and live full, abundant lives. Man went from thinking of God as the destroyer, God Almighty, God who demands worship, to God the defender, the comforter, the healer, God who gives love, rather than demands it.
It seems to me that there are then 2 camps: Those who use the bible as a weapon against others, looking to the OT, the antiquated understanding, as the accusers of the adultress, not to serve God, but to justify their own desires, justify their lack of love, and claim it as God's will, and those who struggle with the OT, seeing the conflict of The Christ and his commands, trying to live by those, and yet, maintain that the OT commands, such as death penalties, were just at the time as well.
The only conclusion I can come to is that the Bible is not God's dictated word to man, but man's understanding and revelation of God, which is pretty complicated in light of our human nature to take revenge, to think of ourselves first, etc. But as mankind matured in his understanding, his thinking and understanding of what God wants and what God is changed dramaticallly as well, even as it continues today, where women are now seen as equals to men, or slavery is clearly understood as immoral. We are understanding that the simplicity of loving your neighbor as yourself truly does fulfill all of the law, and that the petty laws once placed under us are lifted, as Christ demonstrated when healing on the Sabbath, or not washing his hands prior to eating. He revealed a deeper meaning behind, and in so, gave mankind the understanding that God wishes for man to be free, and not burdened with law.
When asked about calls to also enforce, say, stoning disobedient children and those who work on the Sabbath, I was told that those laws were of a different category, which we are no longer under, while the sexual ones we are. It makes it rather confusing, then, to try to know which ones are still in play. Commandment : You shall have no other gods before me. Active. Commandment: You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Not so much. One can hear "o m g" said in common conversation, from peppered in young girls' gossip, to adults, without even thinking about whether it is right or wrong. Men with often use "God" with "damn it" or say "Jesus" as a swear, often to demonstrate the masculinity of being vulgar.
Commandment: Honor the Sabbath and keep it holy.
God is said to have rested on the 7th day, and one is told to do the same. However, does anyone go to confession, asking to be forgiven for working at the mall on the Sabbath? Does "a day of rest" even register in modern day Christian society? And of those who try to honor it, isn't "resting" by going to a restaurant, shopping or a movie make someone else break the commandment that you are trying to follow?
When discussing the passage of "Let he without sin cast the first stone" is used to chide someone from condemning another, I hear a warped interpretation from some Christians. The Pharisees catch a woman committing adultery. They bring her to Jesus, and say that according to Scripture she should be stoned to death, and seek Jesus' approval. If he agrees, then he violates Roman law of murder. If he disagrees, he violates God's law, and Scripture, and proves himself not the Son of God.
Christ draws in the sand (possibly the sins of the accusers), and says at last, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Reluctantly, being humbled, the drop their stones, and walk away in shame. Christ says, "where are those who accuse you?" She says, "They have all gone." He says, "Neither do I condemn you. Your sins have been forgiven. Go and sin no more."
The point that some Christians see from this story is that Jesus told her to stop sinning. That is the main point, they argue. I point out that Jesus was without sin. Jesus could have cast the first stone, and didn't. They counter, "well, maybe he wasn't a witness to the adultery. You have to be caught in the act. Also, there must be at least 2 or 3 witnesses." In other words, had Jesus caught the woman, they are arguing, he would have stone her to death, following Mosaic Law (and probably arrested for murder under Roman Law.) They point out that he commanded her to stop sinning, and that is all that it is about.
However, I simply disagree. First, the men accusing the woman had no intention of serving God by stoning her to death. They were concerned with entrapping Jesus, even if that meant that they would have to kill a woman to do it. It is also important to point out that he said "Neither do I condemn you", because he forgave her sin. He came to the earth to save it, John says, not condemn it.
When I hear people digging into Mosaic Law to justify execution of all homosexuals, I have to ask whether it is because they want to serve God and follow the bible, or because they want to justify their murderous hatred. This is further supported by the same group ignoring other death penalties.
And what of the person that goes out into this world in mercy? How does one resolve, for example, what they see as immoral, where homosexuals are hung or beheaded in the Middle East, following the Quran, and thier own text which says: "Man shall not lie with man as with a woman; it is an abomination. Their blood is upon them. Surely they shall be put to death"?
The easiest, and most common, is to ignore it. Unfortunately, nonChristians will ask you to explain the justification of, say, Elijah calling out to God when children teased him disrepectfully, and God sending she-bears to maul them.
How do you resolve such things?
To me, it seems that it is not God who changes, but man's understanding of God, and what God wants. Man went from understanding that God demanding sacrifice, and observing of law, to understanding that God is merciful, and wants man to be happy, and live full, abundant lives. Man went from thinking of God as the destroyer, God Almighty, God who demands worship, to God the defender, the comforter, the healer, God who gives love, rather than demands it.
It seems to me that there are then 2 camps: Those who use the bible as a weapon against others, looking to the OT, the antiquated understanding, as the accusers of the adultress, not to serve God, but to justify their own desires, justify their lack of love, and claim it as God's will, and those who struggle with the OT, seeing the conflict of The Christ and his commands, trying to live by those, and yet, maintain that the OT commands, such as death penalties, were just at the time as well.
The only conclusion I can come to is that the Bible is not God's dictated word to man, but man's understanding and revelation of God, which is pretty complicated in light of our human nature to take revenge, to think of ourselves first, etc. But as mankind matured in his understanding, his thinking and understanding of what God wants and what God is changed dramaticallly as well, even as it continues today, where women are now seen as equals to men, or slavery is clearly understood as immoral. We are understanding that the simplicity of loving your neighbor as yourself truly does fulfill all of the law, and that the petty laws once placed under us are lifted, as Christ demonstrated when healing on the Sabbath, or not washing his hands prior to eating. He revealed a deeper meaning behind, and in so, gave mankind the understanding that God wishes for man to be free, and not burdened with law.
