Defining Religious Liberty Down

[Ron]

I'm sorry if I, or my fellow Christians, get prickly about that. It's something so basic to understanding Christianity, but so ill-understood. It's easy for us to forget that people really don't know how all that works.

And then there are the Christians who should know better, but appeal to Old Testament law to condemn tattoos, and such. 

Prickly Ron agrees with fistful.

[Nick1911]

Ah, no worries.  It is my error for not doing my homework before posting.

I do recall hearing a discussion at work about this; one man was asserting that the Old Testament law is valid as Jesus had explicitly said it did somewhere in the New Testament, and the other man was saying that the words of Paul overwrote that.  I don't know what came of the discussion, but since I don't know any Christians who shun bacon, I assumed the latter was correct.  And, your link confirms that.

[zahc]

fistful makes it sound simple, but I wish it was.

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

--Jesus

Try reconciling the above with "old testament law no longer applies", which I admit is the general theme in the New Testament.

If old testament law no longer applies, why do people still teach the ten commandments to their children?

[Perd Hapley]

fistful makes it sound simple, but I wish it was.
--Jesus

Try reconciling the above with "old testament law no longer applies", which I admit is the general theme in the New Testament.

If old testament law no longer applies, why do people still teach the ten commandments to their children?

Well, I don't think Nick really cares to know every nuance that you and I might wish to discuss. An interesting question about the Ten Commandments, though, and one I've been pondering a lot, lately. It is interesting that the Jerusalem council didn't expect Gentiles to abide by them.

[makattak]

fistful makes it sound simple, but I wish it was.
--Jesus

Try reconciling the above with "old testament law no longer applies", which I admit is the general theme in the New Testament.

If old testament law no longer applies, why do people still teach the ten commandments to their children?

"The Old Testament" no longer applies is a simplification, as fistfil suggests.

However, a longer answer is that the Old Testament still applies completely. If you want to work your way to Heaven, you must follow the Law down to the smallest jot and tittle. Christ has come and already fulfilled that responsibility, should you accept His sacrifice for you. ("Becoming a Christian") This puts you under grace, not the Law.

However, "All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify." We still teach the Ten Commandments to our children for their own benefit.

(Interesting discussion to have on the politics forum.)

[Strings]

>appeal to Old Testament law to condemn tattoos<

Or get a tattoo of the Law against homosexuality (which, IIRC, is in the same section).

People will pick and choose whatever will support their biases, unfortunately.

OT, for the Christians of the board: y'all might find the series "Naked Archeology" on History interesting. Is all Biblical research...

[Perd Hapley]

>appeal to Old Testament law to condemn tattoos<

Or get a tattoo of the Law against homosexuality (which, IIRC, is in the same section).

People will pick and choose whatever will support their biases, unfortunately.

Is this the old canard about homosexuality only being wrong in the OT? It's condemned by both, actually.

[cordex]

The number of interpretations of any major holy writ is astounding.  Pointing to something "in black and white" in any Bible is often a waste of time since some folks will adhere to the words as they understand they are written, some will adhere to the words as they openly reinterpret them due to some claimed variation in translation or context, some will reinterpret them based on other scripture or alternate translations of other scripture, or "revealed truths" given to this individual or that.

However, a longer answer is that the Old Testament still applies completely. If you want to work your way to Heaven, you must follow the Law down to the smallest jot and tittle. Christ has come and already fulfilled that responsibility, should you accept His sacrifice for you. ("Becoming a Christian") This puts you under grace, not the Law.

So should we transgress the law that grace may abound, Mak?  

And yes, there are a minority of Christians who shun bacon.

[makattak]

So should we transgress the law that grace may abound, Mak? 

God forbid! (I much prefer the King James translation for this verse.)

[roo_ster]

So should we transgress the law that grace may abound, Mak?  

Heh. 

(Interesting discussion to have on the politics forum.)

Looks like it did manage to get the thread 'round to discussing Paul.

[Balog]

The number of interpretations of any major holy writ is astounding.  Pointing to something "in black and white" in any Bible is often a waste of time since some folks will adhere to the words as they understand they are written, some will adhere to the words as they openly reinterpret them due to some claimed variation in translation or context, some will reinterpret them based on other scripture or alternate translations of other scripture, or "revealed truths" given to this individual or that.
So should we transgress the law that grace may abound, Mak?  

And yes, there are a minority of Christians who shun bacon.

From a completely non-religious perspective, there is generally a widely accepted set of doctrines and interpretations of the various holy scripts that define a religion. Christianity in broad general sweeps believes X. Islam in broad general sweeps believes Y. So it is possible to look at a group claiming to adhere to a religion, but to reject that claim based on their rejection or significant reinterpretation of the historic broad doctrines. So if you reject the concept that Christ is an actual historic figure, your group is not actually Christian no matter what you call yourself. And on and on.

[cordex]

From a completely non-religious perspective, there is generally a widely accepted set of doctrines and interpretations of the various holy scripts that define a religion. Christianity in broad general sweeps believes X. Islam in broad general sweeps believes Y. So it is possible to look at a group claiming to adhere to a religion, but to reject that claim based on their rejection or significant reinterpretation of the historic broad doctrines. So if you reject the concept that Christ is an actual historic figure, your group is not actually Christian no matter what you call yourself. And on and on.

Mostly true, I guess, but to do so you have to make your brush enormously broad.  When discussing specifics - even ones that seem like a basic element of a religion you will find a massive variation in both beliefs as well as the "in black and white" evidence given by supporters of each different viewpoint.  For instance, ask a few Christians about the nature of God and the relationship between Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit (or holy spirit).  Or ask some Muslims about the succession of Imams.

Most of the time if you dig deep enough you will find something that is - as defined by the organization - a basic tenant of belief which the member does not agree with or doesn't care the least bit about, but they stay with the organization because it was where their parents went, it was convenient to attend, their friends go there, they like the local leadership, they received financial assistance, etc.

My religious upbringing was from a group that became particularly Balkanized so I'm sure that has some influence on my viewpoint, but everything I've learned in discussions with others of a variety of different flavors of Christianity and Islam and Judaism has only strengthened my impressions.  I admit I haven't talked to very many outside those faiths about their religions so perhaps things are different in other groups, but I tend to think that it is more the nature of human belief than a specific faith.

[Strings]

>Is this the old canard about homosexuality only being wrong in the OT?<

*SIGH*

Missing the forest for the trees, man? I'll explain...

Guy gets a tattoo of the Levitican verse against homosexuality. While ignoring that another verse of the same passage bans tattoos.

The fact that it's about homosexuality is completely beside the point, actually.

[MicroBalrog]

Just why would a person who is anti-homosexual be so against it that he would tattoo this on his body I have never understood.

[Balog]

Mostly true, I guess, but to do so you have to make your brush enormously broad.  When discussing specifics - even ones that seem like a basic element of a religion you will find a massive variation in both beliefs as well as the "in black and white" evidence given by supporters of each different viewpoint.  For instance, ask a few Christians about the nature of God and the relationship between Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Spirit (or holy spirit).  Or ask some Muslims about the succession of Imams.

Most of the time if you dig deep enough you will find something that is - as defined by the organization - a basic tenant of belief which the member does not agree with or doesn't care the least bit about, but they stay with the organization because it was where their parents went, it was convenient to attend, their friends go there, they like the local leadership, they received financial assistance, etc.

My religious upbringing was from a group that became particularly Balkanized so I'm sure that has some influence on my viewpoint, but everything I've learned in discussions with others of a variety of different flavors of Christianity and Islam and Judaism has only strengthened my impressions.  I admit I haven't talked to very many outside those faiths about their religions so perhaps things are different in other groups, but I tend to think that it is more the nature of human belief than a specific faith.

You're conflating individuals not knowing or adhering to orthodox doctrine, with a belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy.

[Perd Hapley]

You're conflating individuals not knowing or adhering to orthodox doctrine, with a belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy.

Maybe you guys are talking about different things?

[cordex]

You're conflating individuals not knowing or adhering to orthodox doctrine, with a belief that there is no such thing as orthodoxy.

I'm not quite sure how you mean this.  There are two issues I brought up.  First, various groups within any major religion have their own views on what make up the basic doctrinal beliefs of their church.  These groups are to a greater or lesser extent accepting of other groups with similar beliefs and dismissive of groups with beliefs or behaviors that conflict too much.  Second, within any group there is significant variation with regard to basic doctrinal beliefs of their organization.

Although I'm sure there are many who would disagree and state that their own beliefs are The Way, I don't think you could accurately say that there is a singular [Christian/Muslim/Jewish] orthodox (note the small "o") doctrine that encompasses even a vast majority of believers.  For Christianity one of the Nicene creeds probably comes as close as you can get, but there is plenty of disagreement even on that and it is pretty slim on doctrine.

Do you disagree?

[longeyes]

Don't blame homosexuals for the collapse of Western civilzation, blame the typewriter.

[Ron]

Don't blame homosexuals for the collapse of Western civilzation, blame the typewriter.

We are experiencing the fruition of post modern thought and evolutionary materialism (the philosophy).

I contend that our civilization will decline and collapse due to the undermining of the very pillars that hold it up.

There is no longer any such thing as absolute truth. All our realities are now viewed as mere social constructs.

There is nothing unique about humanity or earth for that matter.

Ultimately the end result is the full implementation of might makes right.

Science, sociology, psychiatry and modern philosophy do not provide a basis for the assumptions we make in regards to human rights and liberty.

Both(human rights and liberty) will be redefined and become the opposite (already well underway) of what they originally stood for to those who first discovered and promoted the ideas.

We are, I am afraid, in the twilight of the natural rights era, or as I see it,  the twilight of the era of respect for the natural rights endowed to us by natures God.  

[roo_ster]

Ron:

Yep.

1. De-valuing of citizenship.
2. Increasing unbelief in the common religion.
3. Moral decay.
4. Gov't profligacy & corruption.
5. Military adventures to no purpose.
6. Debasing the currency.
7. Increasing centralization of power.
8. Increasing dependency on gov't.
9. ...

It is not like we haven't seen this before in the world or in the West.  The symptoms are all there.  Re-birth is possible.  I suspect that we will not linger, like Rome did, for hundreds of years after the Republic fell.  History is happening much faster, these days.  If there isn't another Great Awakening or such, the lucky folk ought to get ready for asiatic despot overlords.  Unlucky folk will live under a neo-dark age.