Gay is wrong, but not this other stuff?

[Slytovhand]

Except... there are those things called 'books' which actually outline what makes one a 'true X' person. That is 'black and white truth'. (which, of course, means someone has to write a new book )

At least with the natural religions - which specifically don't have said books - such truths don't really exist... there's my experiences and beliefs, and then there's yours, and so on and so forth... course, there's still egos involved

[Sylvia727]

Except... there are those things called 'books' which actually outline what makes one a 'true X' person. That is 'black and white truth'. (which, of course, means someone has to write a new book )

"I believe that believing in the book isn't necessary to be a 'true X'." That's a valid religious position. So is "I believe that the book is an absolute standard of religiousness" and "I believe that the book is an alegorical guideline". I know plenty of Christians who do throw out Leviticus wholesale and/or understand that all of it was meant to help the culture of the time, not just the bits they don't approve of. They aren't any "less Christian" than the ones who chant "God Hates Fags!". Understanding the holy books of your religion doesn't always mean accepting them. It's possible to understand them in their historical context without believing in their application to modern society.

I've always felt that a key problem with a certain segment of Christianity is that they are trying to apply the solutions from two or three thousand years ago to the problems of today. "Anal intercourse is a health risk" is a perfectly valid conclusion for an ancient prophet to draw, with his limited understanding of health and hygiene and the obvious dirtiness of feces and the orifice associated with it. The same for the bans on menstrual blood-- after all, blood is supposed to stay inside the body, and menstrual blood looks less "clean" than regular blood. Not all of the edicts have to be perfect. If they banned five foods, four of which we now know to be a health risk of the time and one of which they only thought was a health risk, does that invalidate their attempts at understanding? Of course not. But with our new techniques and knowledge, we can enjoy all five foods whenever we want.

The same for a lot of the other prohibitions in the Bible, homosexuality being the obvious example. They thought it was unhealthy, and there are certain risks associated with it. But in modern times, the prohibition need no longer apply. Updating the religion to adapt to the advances in science and human understanding is the only sensible thing to do, in my opinion. Otherwise you end up with an institution that refuses to grant its followers liberties for the sole reason that their ancestors had no opportunity for them. I can't buy a television simply because televisions weren't sold in stores when my grandparents were my age. This is the theory of Catholicism's Pope, that he and his adjutants are continuously updating the institution's religion to match the pace of social and scientific progress. The practice is flawed, but the theory is good.

[Rapscallion]

The same for a lot of the other prohibitions in the Bible, homosexuality being the obvious example. They thought it was unhealthy, and there are certain risks associated with it. But in modern times, the prohibition need no longer apply. Updating the religion to adapt to the advances in science and human understanding is the only sensible thing to do, in my opinion.

It's the sensible thing to do, but it won't happen. The problem with religion is that a book (or preacher) claims that a certain thing has been decreed as wrong by an unresponsive entity, invisible and untouchable by anyone seeking guidance.

I like the way you think, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Updating the religion to adapt to the advances in science and human understanding is the only sensible thing to do, in my opinion.

To play devil's advocate (not that I believe in such a being ), that argument is flawed fundamentally. Those proscriptions weren't done by 'God' because of the level of science and technology at the time, there were instituted because God said so, and if God is omniscient, and omnipotent, then the reasons for said proscriptions become irrelevant other than that - God said so. And, for followers of that religion, it's that God they're trying to appease. So, end of story. (this does, naturally, presume that those proscriptions and 'laws' were actually handed down by God, in whatever form that happened to take, rather than one person just making them up...)

(using the example of Christianity, Leviticus shouldn't matter anyway, because JC came down and handed out a new set of laws - love everyone, God above all... that's it).

[AFPheonix]

(using the example of Christianity, Leviticus shouldn't matter anyway, because JC came down and handed out a new set of laws - love everyone, God above all... that's it).

Christ did not say to ignore old testament law. He said that he came to fulfill it, not do away with it. The passage "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself" didn't do away with the 10 commandments, it simply summed them up and elaborated on the spirit of the law. It didn't override them.

[Slytovhand]

Ah, the interpretation I've been given was that there was a new covenant made (which I interpret to mean 'way to live in order to get into heaven'), rather than an ammendment to the original.

But, if that is the case, then all of Leviticus stands, and rather than homosexuality being made ok, all those other things should be made to be bad (again, presuming Leviticus holds any weight). Besides which, even if Leviticus doesn't hold weight, there are quite distinctly 15 Commandments given to Moses, not just 10. Which brings us back to the OP - some things are now ok, when before they weren't...why?

[Sylvia727]

To play devil's advocate (not that I believe in such a being ), ...

You don't believe in lawyers? !!!

... that argument is flawed fundamentally. Those proscriptions weren't done by 'God' because of the level of science and technology at the time, there were instituted because God said so, and if God is omniscient, and omnipotent, then the reasons for said proscriptions become irrelevant other than that - God said so.

Probably why more religions don't update their holy scriptures. But again, let me point you towards Catholicism's Pope (Christianity being the religion American me has the most experience with). He is the successor of Peter and has a direct line to God. "What you bind on earth I will bind in heaven, and what you loose on earth I will loose in heaven," is the quote that Peter and all of the Popes derive their power from. Popes have also overturned rulings from other Popes-- Limbo springs to mind. One Pope said that dead unbaptized babies went to a nothing afterlife. Decades later, another Pope said they went to heaven. In theory, the Pope could write an official church document and say, "Hey, by the way, women are equal to men, and there's nothing shameful or inferior about being female. Oh yeah, and we're cool with gays, too." And that would become official doctrine. Not gonna happen, but if it did it would be official church doctrine simply by virtue of the fact that the Pope has divine infaliability.

I suppose it's also dependent on one's personal "errors" doctrine. Some Christians say the Bible is infaliable, because its writing was directly inspired by God. Other Christians say the Bible is faliable, because it is God's inspiration filtered through limited human understanding. A follower of an "errors" doctrine would be more likely to accept updates, as they would feel that as human understanding expands and passes previous limits, so humans are better able to understand God's divine inspiration.

(using the example of Christianity, Leviticus shouldn't matter anyway, because JC came down and handed out a new set of laws - love everyone, God above all... that's it).

There was a New Covenant, which overturned and replaced the Old. The Old Covenant and the Old Testament are merely good advice, not strictly necessary. That's the only variation of the dogma I've ever heard. Apparently, some denominations have a different take on it.

[Evandril]

Those proscriptions weren't done by 'God' because of the level of science and technology at the time, there were instituted because God said so, and if God is omniscient, and omnipotent, then the reasons for said proscriptions become irrelevant other than that - God said so. And, for followers of that religion, it's that God they're trying to appease.

Well, with the brief amount of information given...I think even a diety would have fun trying to say 'Well, right now, you don't want to eat this, but in about 1000 years, it'll be safe to eat, so just restrict yourself until then.' Offering unchanging rules into a changing world...*shrugs* Could be why things get confused

[Slytovhand]

Well, with the brief amount of information given...I think even a diety would have fun trying to say 'Well, right now, you don't want to eat this, but in about 1000 years, it'll be safe to eat, so just restrict yourself until then.' Offering unchanging rules into a changing world...*shrugs* Could be why things get confused

that'd be funny.."In 1000 years from now, being aware that between now and then, they'll change the calender anyway... oh, and since my creation bit you're going to have to take time as being at least slightly metaphysical in some places of this book anyway... you may begin eating these things ... again... (unless they were caught using dolphin unfriendly fishing means)..."


Sylvia... while what you say is true, that's the whole point of the thread.. some things get interpreted some ways, others differently, and then you have a little dummy spit, have a few wars because people disagree with you, (and keep them going to the point that a nation or 2 gets split apart) and no-one's allowed to live in peace and harmony... which is what the original was actually about.... (ummm, no, I'm not a monotheist- why do you ask?? ok, I know, most religions have actually done that - just not on as broad a scale)

also dependent on one's personal "errors" doctrine.

We are all individuals! I find it slightly interesting that while religion is for the masses, it's still a very personal thing...

(btw, if I were a follower of such, I'd have to be an 'errors' person - as Evandril said - changing world with unchanging doctrine is confusing (unless kept real basic).

There was a New Covenant, which overturned and replaced the Old. The Old Covenant and the Old Testament are merely good advice, not strictly necessary. That's the only variation of the dogma I've ever heard. Apparently, some denominations have a different take on it.

yeah, they'd be the ones fighting certain laws or ammendments over in the US...

You know, one thing I've noticed about Fratching over my time here, for the most part, people are open-minded enough to be able to actually think about the topics that come up... Occasionally, someone on here will announce that they've switched 'sides' in a debate due to the obvious use of logic and reasoning - which is vastly different to the rest of the world. Sure, we're nutjobs, but sane nutjobs

[AFPheonix]

Ah, the interpretation I've been given was that there was a new covenant made (which I interpret to mean 'way to live in order to get into heaven'), rather than an ammendment to the original.

But, if that is the case, then all of Leviticus stands, and rather than homosexuality being made ok, all those other things should be made to be bad (again, presuming Leviticus holds any weight). Besides which, even if Leviticus doesn't hold weight, there are quite distinctly 15 Commandments given to Moses, not just 10. Which brings us back to the OP - some things are now ok, when before they weren't...why?

There was a new covenant through Jesus (or at least the people who brought about Christianity) so that sacrifice was no longer needed since Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice that could be made. Keep in mind though that at the time, the Law was still very much relevant to the people and Jesus didn't come to remove that relevancy. He simply made people think about WHY those laws existed and why they were following them.
See the multiple examples where he helped people on the Sabbath. While he broke the letter of the law, he held true to the spirit of it. He was really a peddler of common sense and humanism if you pick apart his stories.
These days Christians would do well to still have to think about the reasons the laws were made and consider the spirit behind them. Is it to excoriate homosexuals and make women 2nd rate citizens, or was it a way to deal with social norms at the time?

[Boozy]

He was really a peddler of common sense and humanism if you pick apart his stories.

Many Buddhists believe that Jesus was a man who had the same "awakening" that the Buddha and many others had, but because he had no knowledge of Eastern religions, and was brought up in the Jewish faith, he didn't have the right context in which to frame what happened to him.

So Christianity emerged from Judaism the way Buddhism emerged from Hinduism...but at its core, what Jesus and Buddha said are very similar. It's an interesting thought for anyone interested in comparative religion.

[Seshat]

"Be excellent to each other"

- Bill & Ted
- Jesus of Nazareth
- Buddha
- Mohammad
... etc, etc, etc.

[Slytovhand]

"Be excellent to each other"

- Bill & Ted
- Jesus of Nazareth
- Buddha
- Mohammad
... etc, etc, etc.

Duuuuuddddeeee.

[Arcade Man D]

Well, with the brief amount of information given...I think even a diety would have fun trying to say 'Well, right now, you don't want to eat this, but in about 1000 years, it'll be safe to eat, so just restrict yourself until then.' Offering unchanging rules into a changing world...*shrugs* Could be why things get confused

On that topic, I read an interesting article by (I believe) a Rabbi that explains (his view on) the Kosher and clean/unclean food restrictions as God ensuring they did not eat things that would make them sick. Pigs, for example, had Trichinosis, and cooking technology back then could not ensure it was cooked fully enough to kill them off. Shellfish have a rather high occurrence of lethal allergies. Similar to the origin of not mixing meat and dairy was that a popular Canaanite dish was "lamb cooked in the milk of its mother". In this case, it was to ensure that the message that the bond between mother and child should not be made a mockery of in this manner. I wish I could find it again, because it was a really good read.

Essentially, clean/unclean and Kosher restrictions (as were much of Leviticus) were more to ensure that God's chosen people would be fruitful and prosper, and be able to live in (for the most part) civil harmony.

[joe hx]

there are quite distinctly 15 Commandments given to Moses, not just 10.

per Mel Brooks?

from what i remember from reading the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the bible) many many commandments were given, most of the time in groups of ten.