Why so many rules?

[Ishraqiyun]

The Golden rule is great. Love God and your fellow man is great. I think many of the other guidelines are based on those. How do you put that in practice in such and such a scenario? They give examples of how those two can be played out in real world situations and dilemmas. Other rules are intended to teach self discipline ,denying the ego, patience, and being ok with not getting the things you want. Doing that helps a person put their brother first when the need arises. A person used to always feeding their desires would have trouble doing that.

 

[awitch]

Well, it seems to be a general prohibition against grape products.

Were grapes a luxury at the time/place?

 

[b&wpac7]

Were grapes a luxury at the time/place?

I don't think so but I'm not 100% sure. My knowledge of the availability of produce in ancient Israel is shaky.

 

[JJWhite]

Well, it seems to be a general prohibition against grape products. There were other things involved like not cutting hair and such. I don't think it had to do with anything being wrong with grapes or raisins, just that these people were vowing to devote themselves to God and this was a way of showing that devotion.

I wouldn't have taken such a vow.

I'm thinking of a verse saying that Israel (Jacob) forbade certain foods for himself (I think through vow) and his kids followed him in not consuming those things either. The verse says that BEFORE the Torah, GOD hadn't prohibited any foods for the Children of Israel except what Israel had forbidden upon himself. The Qur'an doesn't really comment on him taking that vow in terms of whether it was a good idea or not, but I've seen commentators say that it must have been permissible to make such vows prohibiting lawful things upon oneself in those days since Jacob did it, and, as you know, we kind of assume that prophets are trying to live within the law prescribed to them. BUT, when it comes to us now, I believe it's forbidden to make a VOW FORBIDDING oneself from doing something lawful.. I'd have to look it up, but I have a recollection of a verse where Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prohibited something upon himself and God told him he wasn't allowed to do that, or something along those lines.

And.. just in case anyone was wondering... I believe that, at least, the majority opinion is that Muslims can use wine vinegars (PERHAPS there are some individual views out there against it?)... and we can eat grapes too.

 

[JJWhite]

Were grapes a luxury at the time/place?

I've heard of some scholarly Sufi mystics that said they'd never eat certain fruits and stuff that were luxuries in their times/areas... don't think that's right*, but I've heard of it being done... but I'm not sure if they vowed never to eat it in the sense that if they broke their promise they'd be sinful.

*to turn it into some sort of vow

As for just not eating expensive food so one can use their money for more important things... that's good.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Those are rules for a particular religious order, the Nazarites. It has nothing to do with cultural taboos. It's a sacrafice made by those who choose to be apart of that particular order. Would you suggest that a Fransiscan monk taking a vow of poverty is a 'random cultural taboo?'

As there's a detectable rationale behind the vow of povery ("I shall not feast while others starve"), not quite. Banning grapes and all products made from grapes, OTOH, is just an utterly random taboo placed upon a specific plant.

Now, if there are Franciscans who do not think about the why and wherefore of their vows - that'd be a different story. When a certain prohibition is no longer tied to any genuine justification - that's when it becomes mere cultural ballast.

 

[Arthra]

Thank you for your response. Why do you feel it is necessary to have more laws than:

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."

As you've stated, Jesus tells us that this rule contains within it everything we need. Do the Ba'hai's disagree?

I brought up alcohol because it seemed like a good example. The majority of people are able to drink alcohol without abusing it, it's used in my Church, Jesus drank it, Red Wine has health benefits, plus I'm a home winemaker. It doesn't really make sense to me to ban it in light of these facts. Unless it can be demonstrated to go against the golden rule. (Which in fact in certain cases I'm sure it can be.)

It would make more sense to me to ban soda than wine!

Well in my view.. there are more laws in traditional Christian practise than you may be aware of... and yes many Christians do indeed abstain from alcohol.

I met a Protestant Reformed pastor who disowned his sister for getting a divorce..He won't permit her to enter his house..

Check the stats on alcohol abuse..and that a certain percentage of people are alcoholics anyway..also consider the lobby for the alcohol industry.

By the by.. the usual spelling for Baha'i is not "Ba'hais".

You asked:

"Why do you feel it's necessary to have more laws?"

It isn't up to me.

If you've checked my post I think Baha'is have fewer laws than most..and Baha'i law is only applicable to Baha'is..no body else.

The essential reason for Baha'i law is that it was revealed in the Aqdas and as I pointed out not all the laws are even implemented as yet..a good portion of the text abrogates Islamic law.. and some practices of Christianity such as confession, kissing rings of prelates and having elaborate pulpits.

There are no priests or Mullahs in the Baha'i faith..no professional clergy.

You're welcome to visit a local Baha'i community and check out how many laws we have!

 

[Yardstick]

Well in my view.. there are more laws in traditional Christian practise than you may be aware of... and yes many Christians do indeed abstain from alcohol.

I met a Protestant Reformed pastor who disowned his sister for getting a divorce..He won't permit her to enter his house..

Check the stats on alcohol abuse..and that a certain percentage of people are alcoholics anyway..also consider the lobby for the alcohol industry.

By the by.. the usual spelling for Baha'i is not "Ba'hais".

You asked:

"Why do you feel it's necessary to have more laws?"

It isn't up to me.

If you've checked my post I think Baha'is have fewer laws than most..and Baha'i law is only applicable to Baha'is..no body else.

The essential reason for Baha'i law is that it was revealed in the Aqdas and as I pointed out not all the laws are even implemented as yet..a good portion of the text abrogates Islamic law.. and some practices of Christianity such as confession, kissing rings of prelates and having elaborate pulpits.

There are no priests or Mullahs in the Baha'i faith..no professional clergy.

You're welcome to visit a local Baha'i community and check out how many laws we have!

Thank you for your explanation and for correcting my misspelling!

 

[razeontherock]

a good portion of the text abrogates Islamic law.. and some practices of Christianity such as confession, kissing rings of prelates and having elaborate pulpits.

Hopefully you already know this, but just making sure:

I wouldn't consider those practices as being "Christian." Yes, some professing Christians do those things and I wouldn't consider it makes them somehow "un-Christian," but there's really no Christian teaching on those subjects.

 

[razeontherock]

The Golden rule is great. Love God and your fellow man is great. I think many of the other guidelines are based on those. How do you put that in practice in such and such a scenario? They give examples of how those two can be played out in real world situations and dilemmas. Other rules are intended to teach self discipline ,denying the ego, patience, and being ok with not getting the things you want. Doing that helps a person put their brother first when the need arises. A person used to always feeding their desires would have trouble doing that.

Great answer!

 

[razeontherock]

Others have already given you a list of typical "values" and behaviours commonly exhibited by fundamentalist/evangelical Christians in the United States, and your response was always the same: "Nuh-uh, that's not TRUE Christianity. It's an addendum that's got nothing to do with their religious affiliation."

Your feigned quote is WAY off the mark. Every example you grasp at straws to use is NOT CHRISTIANITY AT ALL - true or otherwise. What it's closer to is something you often speak to, which is CULTURE. You do a good job with that, but not so much w/ C.

proclaiming that pop culture and the media are controlled by an evil leftist conspiracy trying to turn God's Own Country into a lewd harem of sexually perverted drug addicts.

Oh and if you're going to bash, at least get it right. The evil conspiracy is not leftist, but satanic

And "G-d's country" doesn't pertain to the US of A, but more pristine rural areas, of any Nation. Anybody thinking the US is "G-d's own country" really has their head buried in the sand! (Joking aside, there's interesting symbolism proving this point)

 

[razeontherock]

Now, if there are Franciscans who do not think about the why and wherefore of their vows - that'd be a different story. When a certain prohibition is no longer tied to any genuine justification - that's when it becomes mere cultural ballast.

Or maybe - just maybe - there was significance to the Nazarenes that you haven't grasped.

 

[awitch]

Oh and if you're going to bash, at least get it right. The evil conspiracy is not leftist, but satanic

She's not bashing, she's correct.
The ambiguous "left" is blamed for everything: blaming Satan doesn't scare people into not voting for the democrat.

 

[razeontherock]

So you're saying that now in NJ all C's are Republicans? They're an endangered species, gone the way of the dodo!

Can't resist the joke left WAY too open - - leftist, satanist, what's the difference? *Ducks*

 

[Apodictic]

I noticed a lot of talk about alcohol being some add-on rule to loving God and your neighbor.

Consider...

If God does not want his followers drinking alcohol it could then be reasoned that avoiding it is an act of loving God (As some religions do have statements prohibiting it).

Even if drinking has little or no impact on oneself (Quite frankly it tastes terrible in all instances I have ever had the unfortunate time trying it) then one must ask why is it being consumed?

Health benefits? I advise everyone to be cautious with this argument as it is not as 'Solid' as everyone makes it out to be. Please review the link below as an example of what I am talking about.

Red wine, antioxidants and resveratrol: Good for your heart? - MayoClinic.com

To relax? What this translates into is harm to oneself and those in one's life. By relaxing you are effectively temporarily setting your problems aside and not addressing them. This type of activity, if done for this reason, can become addictive and satisfying to the individual, who is in fact doing this activity for selfish reasons (Not out of Love for God or their neighbor), and can result in damaging affects (Influence on others to do likewise) and effects (Worsening problems resulting from delaying action).

The only times I tried alcohol it was out of pressure in a social setting with other people. They were not satisfied drinking alone, they took it upon themselves to convince me to do likewise and 'try it'. Well fortunately I have no addictive disposition to it. Had I had such a disposition then these people would have been at joint fault for that result. The one fault of them for encouraging the action. The other fault on me for trying it (Consider the parallel here to the story of Adam and Eve).

That is why I personally believe individuals should not drink alcohol out of love for God and their neighbors. Those who say it does not do any wrong on themselves and leave it at that are not thinking about the affects/effects it is having on their neighbors who might not be as fortunate as yourself in being able to control themselves.

 

[Supreme]

Other religions are far more legalistic than Christianity. It's more to do with law, than rules. Christians have plenty of rules, but we really don't have much in the way of a 'law'. Unlike the Islamic Sharia and the Jewish Mosaic law, we are under no obligation to perpetuate the legal aspects of religion, which are, for the most part, ridiculous anyway.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I think Rumi does a good job explaining law:


"The Law is like a lamp: it shows the way. Without a lamp, you will not be able to go forward. When you enter the path, your going is the Way. And when you reach the goal, that is the Truth.

The Law may be compared to learning the theory of medicine. The Way involves avoiding certain foods and consuming certain remedies on the basis of this theory. Then the Truth is to find everlasting health and to have no more need for theory or practice.

When man dies to the life of this world, the Law and the Way will be cut off from him, and only the Truth will remain... the Law is knowledge , the way is works and the Truth is attainment to God."

 

[razeontherock]

Interesting that the author reduced "the Way the Truth and the Life, to only the Way and the Truth." What is he/she missing?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Interesting that the author reduced "the Way the Truth and the Life, to only the Way and the Truth." What is he/she missing?

If you follow the way and the truth, the life should logically follow. It's unnecessary to state it if you're trying to simplify Christianity down as far as possible. In fact, you could probably just say "The Way", and that would do.

 

[JJWhite]

If you follow the way and the truth, the life should logically follow. It's unecessary to state it if you're trying to simplify Christianity down as far as possible. In fact, you could probably just say "The Way", and that would do.

May God guide us to the straight way. (1:6)