spin

Given Lev 17:10, is it bad for christians to eat rare steaks or blood pudding? If not, why not? If we can put aside that law, which other laws can we put aside? Why don't christians eat kosher? If they don't have to, what other laws can we brush aside? All of them? Marriage laws? Sexual laws?


spin

Toto

While St Peter learned in a dream that God no longer required him to keep kosher, the prohibition against blood seems to be retained in Acts 15:20. But only the Jehovah's Witnesses take it seriously, and they take to to places never intended. Other Christians believe in progressive revelation - i.e., we don't follow those primitive superstitions because God finally revealed germ theory.

comment

Do animals have souls??

Blood Taboo - the Sixth Commandment

This just gets stranger. I'd better stop.

judge

Well my own views are not what would be Orthodox in many areas, but I do think that Jesus was sent from God, so this respect I am christian.

Trying to keep a set of laws seems the antithesis of the spiritual ideas Christ taught.

The laws in the Hebrew bible seem to have for the most part little to do with the spiritual ideas taught by Christ, but hey, He lived in that culture so He worked with what he had.

When you say "put them aside" what do you mean exactly?

Can I put them aside?


Can you put them aside?

Should they be enforced civilly?

I think the short answer is we can put any of these laws aside if we wish.

Now I am not sure I answered your question though. In what sense do you mean can? Do you mean which can we put aside and still remain in the "good books" or something like that?

spin

So polygamy could be acceptible? What about homosexual marriages? Euthenasia? If we can put laws aside, why not go the whole hog?


spin

judge

Acceptible to me?
Why not, if people voluntarily enter into that arrangement what business is it of mine?

Acceptible to God?

I don't know ..but I don't see why not.

Acceptible to the civil authorities? Not in a lot of places...



Well, if two people enter into a contract then good luck to them. I'm not up on the details but I get the idea that there are at times legal privledges for married couples at times and that homosexuals want the same legal priveleges, not to mention general acceptance.

How do we weigh these issues? Do families provide something to society that need be encouraged legally in some way? There seems to be a general argument in this direction. Is it a good argument? I don't know.

No doubt it varies from society to society.

These are issues beyond me.

That said I am very much in favor of heterosexual marriage, (homosexual marraige I am probably not for or against) I think it is an institution from on High. It is naturally, a great way to live. But it is not for everyone, nor should it be.

I don't think humans are the kind of animal suited to getting a girl pregnant, then pissing off and leaving her to fend for herself. Some animals can get away with this, and some even leave it to the male. But humnas seem naturally suited to marriage in many ways.

Although I'm sure not all will agree.

Perhaps emotionally we are better suited to longer relationships as well.







I have no objection and I can't imagine God would. Our lives here are very short. I don't believe death is the end. Why not pass happily into the next world if you have lived your earthly life?

This is just a dress rehearsal. We are here to learn and grow IMHO. Not to squeeze every last drop out of life , just because we can.

I think our attitudes and idea about death today are very heavily influenced by our lack of understanding that this is just "school". We want to prolong life as much as we can, even when it makes no sense.

Well we can if we wish. This life is an intricate test of our free will sent down from an entity High Above IMHO.

We can abandon laws in our own life if we wish but there will be consequences.

Looking to ancient texts are only so much help. IMHO we can see in them the "wisdom of the ages"...and probably a lot of other stuff as well.

How do we know what stealing is? At times it becomes very unclear as to whether "theft" has ocurred or not. Looking to Deuteronomy is only so much help.


In the end we try, as best we can to understand the best way to live, we never get it right, but we can approach. We try to treat one another how we would like to be treated, whilst having laws to protect the innocent.


These thoughts are a bit scattered as I have gone back over adding bits here and there, but you probably get the idea...unless you have more questions?

youngalexander

Well, from an Australian perspective, most certainly John Laws!

But seriously folks; as a recent convert to Pastafarianism I am excited about the laws of cannibalism, particularly as expressed by the mother Xian church.

As a young tacker I slowly became aware of this frightful propensity of my elders to indulge at regular intervals in human flesh and blood. I must say that I was astonished, the more so since they appeared to be harmless wafers and diluted vino. Yet numerous authorative pedants insisted that this was the real Mazamba, the visceral entrails of the God.
Shock horror, I became an agnostic. Well, I'm a bit squeamish about raw meat.

As it happens I am perfectly serious. Eating the God, very odd!!

I shall spare you my thorts upon redemtion - for another time? :rolling:

CJD

The first step out of the gate here, spin, is to discuss this in the context of Torah, mosaic covenant, and new covenant, and how the canonized apostolic writings conceive of the relationship between old and new (this is, of course, not without difficulties, as the canon is not monolithic in this regard — though not beyond repair).

In short, the one (Saint Paul) who understood his vocation ("when the time had fully come," Gal. 4:4) as one which demanded that now was the time for the Gentiles to be brought into the kingdom (en masse), argued that Torah was given for a time, and while it was given as a revelation of YHWH to his people (for them to be set apart from the world in which they lived so as to draw the world unto them and thus unto YHWH), it ends up serving a darker purpose, namely, to magnify their Adam-ness (i.e., that they were just like the Gentiles; like Adam, indeed, more so).

So, this one who strives to bring Gentiles into the kingdom sees how Torah was being misused by his compatriots: instead of drawing all people to themselves, they were keeping people out by using Torah as the boundary. This is where Romans, Galatians, etc. come in. "By the works of Torah," so Paul, "no person is deemed a part of God's covenant. This is not what defines God's covenant people. Rather, it is faith."

So, then, faith, not Torah observance (dietary laws, holy days, etc.), becomes the marker by which God's people are delineated. The begging question is, of course, what is faith? Ironically, so Paul, faith is the fulfillment of Torah. Faith is tantamount to "Loving YHWH with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself." Which, incidentally, was thought to be that upon which all the Torah and Neve'im depend.

This is why, at least for Paul, we see supposed vacillation. It is perfectly permissible for Jews to practice Torah (so long as they understand faith to define their coventantal relationship), but it is absolutely not permissible for them to impose this upon Gentiles. Reading between the lines at the so-called Jerusalem Council in Acts, I guess that Paul was not even happy about the command not to eat blood. I could fathom his response being, "Well, of course we'll collect some money for the brethren back home, but scratch that blood nonsense; Gentiles are free in Christ! (and Jews are too, if their consciences would permit it)." The Jews, like James in the council, I'll bet were thinking about the scandal eating blood would create. Let's keep the peace, so they thought, for believing Gentiles eating blood would cause an uproar. No doubt it did. Hence the letters of Paul.

Your questions about marriage, sexuality, etc., are of a slightly different nature, for they are not inextricably bound by Torah. When morality in these matters is alluded to in the writings of the NT, Torah is not hailed. Rather, the creation narrative is. Of course, if Jews were being written to, then maybe Torah would be hearkened (along with the creation narrative), but again, Torah wasn't for the Gentiles.

In sum, the best reason why Gentile Christians (and Jewish Christians too, if the wanted) ought not to follow Torah today is twofold: 1) If they start it, they'll have to finish it (and they'll be judged by it); and 2) they fulfill it anyway, because Torah has been written on the heart; thus they "Love YHWH with all their heart, etc., and love their neighbors, etc."

Don't ask me about how history shows a great many Christians not fulfilling these commands (not surprisingly, especially those in postitions of power; yet this is still to our shame); I'm just trying to explain how the canonized apostolic writings (mainly Paul's) conceive of it.

Best,

CJD

Clivedurdle

Love your neighbour isn't a new covenant - it's in Numbers(?)

The Eucharist "this is my body" etc does sound like a direct contradiction.

Are there not many examples of Jesus breaking sabbath and other rules? Has anyone done a complete list of these "transgresions"?

If Food laws, Sabbath rules other rules are OK to break, what is the logic of coming down so heavy on other alleged sins - homosexuality and abortion for example? Abortion is fascinating because the soul was believed to enter the about to be born at quickening, not conception.

andrewcriddle

FWIW there was long uncertainty as to whether or not eating blood is appropriate for Christians.

Acts 15:20 & 29 seem to condemn it and there are later canons upholding this position Council in Trullo 692 Andrew Criddle

Berthold

There is a passage in the Gospel of Mark where Jesus declares that rules about food are irrelevant. As far as I understand doctrine, the NT supersedes the OT whenever they are at odds.