Gob wrote:No, the reason I asked for quotes from outside of Leviticus is that we all know that Leviticus forbids a whole bunch of stuff which it is now ok to do.
According to whom?
I think Sue's point (whiffling over heads) might be that humans have decided that stuff forbidden in Leviticus is "OK to do".
That has absolutely no logical bearing on whether God regards such things as 'ok to do'. It's an invalid conclusion (is that it?) from the premise.
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
I think Sue's point (whiffling over heads) might be that humans have decidedthat stuff forbidden in Leviticus is "OK to do". That has absolutely no logical bearing onwhether God regards such things as 'ok to do'. It's an invalid conclusion (is that it?) from the premise.
Areas highlighted to assist comprehension
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Which is why I posed the question in the form that I did. Leaving aside that humans may or may not have changed their minds, does God still consider it a sin to wear permanent press, or other clothing of mixed fibers (Lev 19:19) or not?
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
I don't know but expect one day to find out. (I hope not!). It's not clear to me that God considered it a sin as such but I suppose that if the Hebrews had disobeyed Him in this (or rather, when they did for it seems certain to have happened) then He would consider disobedience to be sinful - which is the key thing and is what you mean, I think.
I wonder if Jesus, Paul and other first century AD folks wore leather and wool - if that's an example. What do you think?
There's an argument I've seen that the Hebrew Law was of two kinds, dealing with practical matters of living and moral matters. It would be akin to laws regulating traffic speed vs. laws against theft. The first is a governance (and hence societal agreement) issue whereas the second is universal.
I should agree that there could exist times and places where stealing was at least admired if practised on strangers - amongst Apaches and in the East End of London for instance. This indicates that a given universal moral law may not itself be universally adhered to. But of course, stealing from an Apache or a cockney would have a quite expected result indicating that their view is quite in accord with our own!
The failure of mankind to adhere to a moral law does not prove that it is not moral and universal. Nor (I concede) does following such a law prove that it is moral and universal.
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
I may have caused some confusion though in saying "I hope not". Rather poor use of language on my part.
I was trying to say that I hope that God isn't ticked off about mixing fabrics because I'm in trouble if He is. It is not the case that "I hope not" to find out!
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
I may have caused some confusion though in saying "I hope not". Rather poor use of language on my part.
I was trying to say that I hope that God isn't ticked off about mixing fabrics because I'm in trouble if He is. It is not the case that "I hope not" to find out!
Meade
eta to correct say to saying
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
that may be because he believes that a portion of them have been superceeded/fulfilled (as most Christians do) as well as some that have a more limited applicaton to civil society (and are largely rendered inconsequntial due to advances in heath and sanitation)
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
My point above was that, as far as I can tell, Christians -- at least Pauline Christians and their successors -- have never comported with the Levitical injunctions, while Jews -- for whom the Pentateuch was written -- have continued to observe them (with the exception of priestly and sacrificial rtuals, which have been rendered moot since 70 C.E.). Yes, even the prohibition on mixing linen and wool (see "Shatnez").
There are real reasons for each of the 613 commandments, some being culturally specific and some being "universal" principle, some obvious and some obscure. If some seem odd to us today, it is because the world is a much different place, and we must try to recall the world of the Bible to understand the lesson being taught, which may still be of significant value today. Observing the commandments is a constant reminder of the teachings that thet embody. I do not believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, nor that it must be adhered to as divine decree, but I do believe it contains much that is worthy of serious consideration.
Crackpot wrote:that may be because he believes that a portion of them have been superceeded/fulfilled (as most Christians do) as well as some that have a more limited applicaton to civil society (and are largely rendered inconsequntial due to advances in heath and sanitation)
And who is to say which are which? One can reasonably claim that the dietary laws were rendered moot by the Council of Jerusalem and/or by modern sanitation (although some Christians, like Seventh Day Adventists, still maintain otherwise). It is more difficult to make that case for planting green beans alongside tomatoes, which few, if any, Christians would claim is still prohibited.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
I'm talkig abour the bit of sending women outside of the camp (along with just about any medical condition iuntil such time they are deemeds "clean" by the priestood
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Oh, you mean "niddah", which merely means a "separation" (however you want to define that) due to ritual impurity. Yes, it is still observed by the Orthodox, although it has never meant "camping in the wilderness." This is why Orthodox men will not shake hands or otherwise have physical contact with women.
But getting back to my point, it seems a bit ironic that Christians today rely on Levitical proscriptions as authority for social policy when their church has specifically rejected such rules when they seemed too burdensome for the membership.
Scooter wrote:It is a non-answer because it contrasts with the assuredness with which you claim that other Levitical laws still hold. IOW you're just another hypocrite that picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe and follow, according to your convenience and prejudices.
Have I assuredly claimed that other Levitical laws still hold? I think not but am ready to have my own words quoted back at me to show that it is so. Which ones are they?
You will find it difficult to find any suggestion from me that Levitical punishments should be applied to anyone - are you arguing that I should so think?
If you mean that I have pointed out that the Bible in both OT and HT declares homosexual activity to be sin then that's correct. Note: that's what I mean in saying "homosexuality is a sin" - the activity not the individual. (Sue - I don't rely on Levitical proscriptions. Even those repugnant Westboro pagans don't).
I'd have to admit to hypocrisy in that from time to time I do what I know should not be done. On the other hand, there is some irony in being accused of hypocrisy because I admit not knowing the answer to a question. This is especially so when no one on the other side of the debate admits ignorance.
I believe all parts of the Bible. I don't think that means I'm required to walk or ride a donkey to travel from place to place.
Meade
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Scooter wrote:And who is to say which are which? One can reasonably claim that the dietary laws were rendered moot by the Council of Jerusalem and/or by modern sanitation (although some Christians, like Seventh Day Adventists, still maintain otherwise). It is more difficult to make that case for planting green beans alongside tomatoes, which few, if any, Christians would claim is still prohibited.
Actually you could say the dietarty laws were rendered moot By Pauls vision. (SDAs don't claim otherwise they just see it as a "good idea" with the health to prove it) the Sacrificial and cleanliness laws were renedered obslosete (fulfilled) by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. that leaves large swaths that have never been completely deliniated. Answers range from they're still in effect to nothing is forbidden as long as it's done with the intent to honor God
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Fucking hell, it's like being back in Sunday School here....
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
