Another Politician blows it!

elaine · 07-01-09 7:04 pm

A comment about Gov. Sanford: I keep asking but no one has the answer: when does Sanford's public stoning take place? Conservatives keep spouting all these Old Testament quotes to establish that "God" hates homosexuality. But never a peep about how the same books (Leviticus, Deuteronomy) claim that God commands a stoning when someone commits adultery. Interesting gear-shifting there. Which is it? Is the OT defunct, or not? Why is it still included in most copies of your Bronze Age artifact if it is no longer enforced?

don · 07-01-09 8:09 pm

I keep asking but no one has the answer I suggest the following: The broad, underlying principles of specific laws found in the Hebrew Bible apply to the Christian, unless the New Testament rules otherwise. For example, the "sin" of homosexual behavior or adultery remain "sin" for the Christian. But, the Christian church applies "disfellowship" rather than civil punishment. Matthew 18 provides guidance for this. The New Testament does not envisage Jesus' ideas managing a theocracy. .

bob_2 · 07-01-09 10:15 pm

Elaine, thought you were for secularization of society, not theocracy. Live and let live and let the Judge sort out who gets "stoned" or "burned" eh. I for one would love to see deadlock in politics cease and decision be made on what is the best decision not who has the strongest political "whip" on the floor of congress.

elaine · 07-01-09 10:56 pm

Bob, FYI, I was posting a comment on Gov. Sanford from the WaPo that I thought was either: humorous or sarcastic. Take your pick. It does not reflect my opinion. Don, when you say "underlying principles" how do you apply them? From the Hebrew Bible we find a great many rules regarding sin that the NT never mentions, and that surely do not apply today, or do they? Even so, many would have to be ignored as being very archaic.

don · 07-01-09 11:27 pm

From the Hebrew Bible we find a great many rules regarding sin that the NT never mentions, and that surely do not apply today, or do they? Even so, many would have to be ignored as being very archaic. I apply them as they make sense to me. I worship God; the "Almighty God", He has been called. This God has reportedly left one literary artwork for us; written with His own hand; the Ten Commandments. Here we have a transcript of what Almighty God considered important enough to put in His own writing. Other regulations, usually spinoffs of the ten, have sensible principles which prompted their creation. As I examine any one of those regulations, I ask myself, can I apply that to my life; if so, I do. One of interest: "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." I understand that Orthodox Jews refuse to eat cheese burgers because of this provision. I don't view this as a legal constriction, but I will not, for example, stirfry chicken with eggs. The principle behind the regulation serves to guide my behavior on this. I don't expect anyone to follow my lead on this. But, it is a rather profound principle, in my opinion. Another regulation calls for a low wall at the edge of a roof to be built. "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it." This makes good sense. One's property should be safe for people. This includes, roofs, swimming pools, holes dug, etc. .

george · 07-02-09 5:24 am

Good answer, Don, as you determine the principle behind the law and apply it to your own life situations. So why are we arbitrarily sticking to the letter of the law in some situations, but are apply the principles in others? Even when it comes to the first commandment, we choose to ignore the command not to make "any likeness of what is in the heaven above or the earth beneath or in the water under the earth". You could say this is a command against worshiping these things but, read carefully, it goes beyond that.

don · 07-02-09 9:46 am

we choose to ignore the command not to make "any likeness of what is in the heaven above or the earth beneath or in the water under the earth". You could say this is a command against worshiping these things but, read carefully, it goes beyond that. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand (generations) of those who love me and keep my commandments. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> A strict pastor friend of mine applied this to all pictures of Jesus. He caused quite a stir in his local church. It Is Written's practice of depicting a picture of Jesus for its closing prayer bothers me. But, does the Bible condemn all images? Consider:<blockquote>2 Chronicles 3:10-16. In building the temple Solomon had angels sculpted, as well as embroidered. 2 Chronicles 4:1-4. The Laver was upheld by twelve sculpted oxen with others around them.</blockquote>In light of this, I don't believe that the 2nd Commandment forbids all engravings, or pictures. The word "graven image" used always refers to an object of formal worship. .

john8verse32 · 07-02-09 3:39 pm

I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation how is that fair? its even against Hebrew law which required that only the guilty be punished.... but far be it from me to tell the church what to do....since I can't even go anymore, having had my stones cut.... and I read that even my kids, and their kids, and their grand kids unto the 10th generation also cannot go to church. And it was an SDA doctor from a long missionary family who did it without warning me!!!!

elaine · 07-02-09 4:02 pm

Don, it's called "kingly concessions." The golden cherubs absolutely violates that second commandment. How can it not? As for meat and milk, a recent Biblical Archeological Review had an article showing that the pottery vessels used to contain meat and milk could not be interchangable as the residue from the milk always permeated the pot and would spoil any meat contained therein: a very practical reason; but one that makes absolutely no sense today with our modern refrigeration. Same with many other ancient Hebrew rules. To apply them today is to be part of the Hareim, or extreme Orthodox Jewry. It is always easy to rationalize our own actions when we compare them with the Bible teachings. Better we should realize that ancient people had ancient reasons that we may know nothing about today. What's this chicken and egg thing? Is it dietary or religious or simply your interpretation of a Hebrew rule?

george · 07-02-09 5:13 pm

If you want literalism and the nonsense that it is in the here and now, read The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs - hilarious but also thought provoking. Jocobs gives himself a year to live exactly how the OT mandates, minus the sacrificial slayings. As for the second commandment, it depends which version of the Bible you choose to read. My Bible (Updated American Standard) reads, You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. Then verse 5 goes on to say not to worship them. Of course it also depends on what is meant by worship. Any time you choose to take a picture and display it on your mantle one could say you're worshiping it; or if you place a sculpture in your house the same could be said. I doubt anyone made carvings just to admire the artistry back when those commandments were made, so it is silly to ascribe the second commandment to any likeness. But the point is, we have to interpret these things in light of our present situation and understandings. The same should be possible for all the rest of the commandments etc. The Ten Commandments were a version of LOVE GOD AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR for those people at that time. The principles still apply in the form of the two great commandments, but the specific applications have long gone.

don · 07-02-09 6:41 pm

how is that fair? God, as I view Him, transcends human ways. The Biblical writers assert that He sends the rain, as well, on the just and unjust. How is that fair? There are genetic influences which last generation after generation. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome provides an example of the next generation suffering for a past one's "sins". My conception of God involves "natural law" as well as "volitional law". I see this generation to generation proclamation by God to be descriptive rather than punitive. The Ten Commandments were a version of LOVE GOD AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR for those people at that time. The principles still apply in the form of the two great commandments, but the specific applications have long gone. I see no problem in applying them as my sense tells me to do. If you agree with my sense and I with yours, then we can walk together in agreement. it's called "kingly concessions." The golden cherubs absolutely violates that second commandment. How can it not? I disagree. The point of the second commandment is regarding making of idols not any, and all, artistic portrayals. The second commandment does not need to be understood as a prohibition on all artistic portrayals. The cherubs and the oxen were in line with God's will. The record says that God gave His blessing to the finished work. Rather than proclaiming the cherubs and oxen a violation, why not consider it a precedent in helping us to understand. (Message edited by Don on July 02, 2009)

john8verse32 · 07-03-09 1:08 pm

The Biblical writers assert that He sends the rain, as well, on the just and unjust. How is that fair? I propose that it is NOT FAIR.... IF God deliberately decides who gets the rain and who does not..... that might have been the prevailing superstitious belief back in the stone age, but today we know that the weather is more of a random event, based on a mix of natural causes.....meaning God is probably not involved on the local level....tho His laws of nature are in control of world wide atmospheric chaos as well as the way the local winds blow...... and if God was in control of the rain....why: 1) why Did He tell Olde Abe to move from Ur, then from harran, next to a year round fresh water supply, up to the dry, desert hills of Judea where Abes decendants would later be subject to drought and famine which God either would not or could not overcome to help them? thereby forcing His allegedly favorite tribe to become slaves in Egypt, next to another year round fresh water supply? the myths about water in a desert environment must have been very important back in those daze...the tale even claims that God severely punished Moses by refusing to let him into the promised land ...and why? for striking a rock for water when he should have just asked the rock nicely. God, as I view Him, transcends human ways. that's for sure!!!! but in my salesmansship training, I learned that if you want to build rapport with your customers, you work at their level..their level of knowledge, intelligence, understanding.... According to the story, God created mankind, He was smarter, more knowledgeable, and more experienced than Adam and Eve, and should have known how to communicate with mankind better than we see in the OT.... in the Garden tale...is it really Eve's "sin" for being decieved? or should/could God have better explained everything? and why should we have to die just because Eve was deceived? or was that just another campfire story told to Hebrew kids to get them to learn to listen carefully to those in charge?

elaine · 07-03-09 3:20 pm

but the specific applications have long gone. If that is so, may it be assumed that you no longer try to live by the specifics at all? Where is love to one's fellowman ever mentioned in the Ten? Love to God is, but love can never be commanded, so obviously it meant obedience and respect.

don · 07-03-09 8:42 pm

but the specific applications have long gone. The SDA high school religion curriculum addresses the difference between a principle and a standard. A principle is "a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived; a general and fundamental truth that may be used in deciding conduct or choice." A standard is a rule; usually something adopted or enacted by an individual or a group, formal or informal. It is a specific application of a principle. It can be moral, ethical, dealing with habits, etc. When considering the Hebrew Torah the specific applications, or standards, have lost much of their relevance. If we hold this ancient body of laws to be of value, the major order of business is to determine the principles behind the ancient standards and then to establish new standards. We can do this individually, such as my avoidance of cooking chicken and egg together. Or, we can do this as a group, such as the Adventist practice of abstaining from pork products. Here is another way to look at it: All ancient precepts have valid underlying principles and they also have time-related, timed out, standards derived from them. All the principles remain in force. All the standards need reworking by the individual or the group. .

bob_2 · 07-03-09 8:47 pm

Certainly underlying the last 6 Commandments is an implied respect of one's fellow man. One will not take another's wife, kill another person, steal their hard earned possessions, and will honor parents that brought you into the world with much pain and care.

elaine · 07-03-09 9:37 pm

All ancient precepts have valid underlying principles Can you explain the underlying principle and how it would be applied today of the new mother of a female child being unclean twice as long as for giving birth to a male? Can you explain the principle of seething a kid in its mother's milk? I explained the pottery but you seem to find a "principle" in not mixing eggs with chicken. What is that principle? Can you explain the principle of testing for infidelity of an accused wife? Can you explain the principle for ignoring clean and unclean meats that may be eaten (Deut. 12)?

george · 07-03-09 9:40 pm

Elaine, When I said the specifics are long gone, I meant the reason the commandments were given at that time have changed. I doubt few people are tempted to set up a carved idol to bow before it every day. That was the intent of the first commandment at the time. The basic principle behind the 1st commandment was to respect God as uniquely qualified for our worship and loyalty. That principle still applies minus the carved idols. There are many cultural issues that would need specific commandments if those ten were given today, but I''m sure they would fit nicely under one of the two great commandments given by Jesus.

don · 07-03-09 10:56 pm

Can you explain the underlying principle and how it would be applied today of the new mother of a female child being unclean twice as long as for giving birth to a male? No underlying principle is given. So, I am left to interpret it as I can. My interpretation will not please you, I suppose. It has been suggested that women have a more profound family influence and so their cleansing receives double the time. They end up twice as clean as the man. This practice can also be used to show that men and women are not treated the same in God's economy. Different roles deserve different treatment. Can you explain the principle of seething a kid in its mother's milk? I explained the pottery but you seem to find a "principle" in not mixing eggs with chicken. What is that principle? For me, it is simple respect for motherhood. Can you explain the principle of testing for infidelity of an accused wife? In most ancient societies, I presume that the husband had the final say re: his wife's supposed infidelity. Some cultures, even today, give similar final judgment to the husband. In Hebrew culture, the priesthood and an objective test, are granted final "say." I see this rule as a protection of the wife from an unfair husband. It helps me to note that there is no record of this law being implemented, ever. (Can't think of one example.) Just as we have archaic laws on the books today, so then. Can you explain the principle for ignoring clean and unclean meats that may be eaten (Deut. 12)? Notice the Message paraphrase rendering in Deut. 12<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Deuteronomy 12:20-23 (The Message) 20-22 When God, your God, expands your territory as he promised he would do, and you say, "I'm hungry for meat," because you happen to be craving meat at the time, go ahead and eat as much meat as you want. If you're too far away from the place that God, your God, has marked with his name, it's all right to slaughter animals from your herds and flocks that God has given you, as I've commanded you. In your own towns you may eat as much of them as you want. Just as the nonsacrificial animals like the gazelle and deer are eaten, you may eat them; the ritually unclean and clean may eat them at the same table.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>This does not endorse the eating of unclean meat but rather the allowing of unclean persons to eat the meat. (Every translation I have read focuses on the "unclean may eat" rather than the "unclean may be eaten".) .

bob_2 · 07-03-09 11:19 pm

Don, I found the answer: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The Rabbis Answer: Of course we consider it a religious experience! For in bearing children, women come in intimate contact with divine creation. And because giving birth connects a woman uniquely with both life and death, the Torah subjects her to special laws during this time. So for a week after giving birth to a son and two weeks after bearing a daughter, a new mother remains ritually impure. The Torah compares this period to "the time of a woman's menstrual infirmity" (12:2), when she is likewise barred from her husband's bed, as well as from certain religious precincts. After this period comes a longer but less restrictive phase, which ends when she brings a sin offering and is declared pure. A woman who bears a daughter remains ritually impure for twice as long as for a newborn son because of the physical differences between the genders. As with all distinctions, this one needs to be marked. The Sages In Our Own Time Explain: This double period of quarantine was the Torah's way of acknowledging that a newborn female child would herself become a mother someday and would therefore become a source of blood defilement, like her mother. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.kolel.org/pages/5763/tazria.html" target=_top>http://www.kolel.org/pages/5763/tazria.html</a> Is the principle meaningful today, and to us non-Jewish types, maybe not, but there was a reason that could be argued by the Rabbi. Principle or standard??? Want more?: <a href="http://vbm-torah.org/archive/intparsha/vayikra/27-61tazmet.doc" target=_top>http://vbm-torah.org/archive/intparsha/vayikra/27- 61tazmet.doc</a>

elaine · 07-04-09 11:13 am

you seem to find a "principle" in not mixing eggs with chicken. What is that principle? For me, it is simple respect for motherhood. Is it respecting motherhood to kill and eat the mother chicken?? Is it O.K. to eat a tom? Is it O.K. to eat an unfertilized egg? Do you know the sex of every chicken you eat?

don · 07-04-09 12:21 pm

Elaine, I agree that problems can be raised but it still seems an extreme offense (to the mind) to boil a kid in its mother's milk. Of course, I only have convinced myself on this. It works for me.

bob_2 · 07-04-09 1:00 pm

Notice this statement about rationale of Kosher: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Does the authority of a commandment rely upon our comprehension of its rationale? The idea of a reason justifying fulfillment of a commandment or giving authority to the Halachah is foreign to Jewish thought. G-d, the Creator and Master of all of existence, has the right to command, to forbid and to obligate us regardless of our lack of comprehension of the reasons behind His commands. In the words of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (Foreword to Horeb), "Even, therefore, if every Divine precept were a riddle to us and presented us with a thousand unsolved and insoluble problems, the obligatory character of the commandments would not in the slightest degree be impaired by this. Whatever command or prohibition of G-d it may be that prompts one to ask why one should do this and not do that, there is but one answer: Because it is the will of G-d... In a similar vein, Rabbi Hirsch writes in a footnote to his book "The Nineteen Letters" (Eighteenth Letter), "As in Nature, the phenomenon remains a fact although we have not yet comprehended it as to its causes and connections, and its existence is not dependent on our investigation, but vice versa, thus also the components of the Torah remain the law even if we have not discovered the cause and connection of a single one." Do all the commandments have reasons that are comprehensible to the human mind? Jewish scholars throughout time have all attempted to find reasons for the commandments, including the chukim or statutes (usually understood to be commandments that have no rationale comprehensible to the human mind). Nachmanides (Deuteronomy 22:6) points out that all commandments even statutes have reasons, and that "the absence of reasons for the Torah (that we can understand), is a result of our own intellectual blindness." He quotes a statement of our Sages (Midrash Rabbah, Numbers 19:3-4) that G-d revealed to Moses the reasoning behind the laws of the Red Heifer, perhaps the archetypal statute, whose ashes purify the defiled, yet defile the pure. Similarly Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed 3:31) maintains that all the commandments have reasons. "Every commandment of the 613 commandments either imparts to us a true philosophy, eradicates a false philosophy, enforces a rule of social justice, nullifies injustice, bestows noble character traits, or warns against evil traits." He qualifies this, however, and stresses that this is true only of the broad outlines of the commandment , and states that no human has any hope of understanding the reasons behind the details of a commandment (ibid., 3:26), "In my opinion, one who engages in creating reasons for the details of a commandment is acting under the influence of a major delusion." (In contrast to the view of Maimonides, the Kabbalists and Rabbi S.R.Hirsch have given reasons for even the most minute details of the commandments.) Maimonides directs us to investigate all of the commandments and to uncover as much of their reasoning as possible. As he states in Laws of Misappropriation (8:8), "It is correct for a person to investigate the laws of the Holy Torah and to know their purpose to the best of his abilities. If he does not find a reason or purpose in something it should not be light in his eyes ...he should not reject the commandments because he does not know their reasons, and he should not attribute false ideas to G-d or think about them as of profane matters..." He also writes, "Even though all the chukim of the Torah are decrees, as we explained at the end of the Laws of Misappropriation it is correct to contemplate them, and to offer reasons wherever possible." (Laws of Exchanges, 4:13. See also, Guide for the Perplexed, 3:48 and commentaries ad loc; Nachmanides, Deuteronomy 22:6. See also, Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megilah 25a, Rashi and Tosfot, ad loc. where it is implied that there are no reasons for the chukim.) <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/kosher-why#17" target=_top>http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/kosher- why#17</a> In other words, if you can't find the rationale, the Jew deferred to God and considered their knowledge or lack of it, spiritual blindness, possibly to be overcome or not. For me the 613 laws with or without rationale were fulfilled at the cross. (Whew, that was a load off, eh???) (Message edited by Bob_2 on July 04, 2009)

elaine · 07-04-09 1:51 pm

But you still don't mind eating a dead chicken "God said it, I believe it, that's enough"?

bob_2 · 07-04-09 2:41 pm

Makes life a lot easier, and faith in God, helps one to sleep better at night, I propose.

don · 07-04-09 2:54 pm

faith in God, helps one to sleep better at night, I propose This is true, from my perspective, if the described "God" is faithful. I prefer a God who invites my rationale. When God ordererd the annihilation of women and children, I view it as admirable to stand up to God and say, I don't believe in doing such a thing. Moses essentially did that when God wanted to replace the Israelites with a new lineage from Moses. I believe that God likes for us to challenge the reports which portray Him as unfair or genocidal. .

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 07-01-09 7:04 pm

Another Politician blows it!

#2 07-01-09 8:09 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#3 07-01-09 10:15 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#4 07-01-09 10:56 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#5 07-01-09 11:27 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#6 07-02-09 5:24 am

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#7 07-02-09 9:46 am

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#8 07-02-09 3:39 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#9 07-02-09 4:02 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#10 07-02-09 5:13 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#11 07-02-09 6:41 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#12 07-03-09 1:08 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#13 07-03-09 3:20 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#14 07-03-09 8:42 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#15 07-03-09 8:47 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#16 07-03-09 9:37 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#17 07-03-09 9:40 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#18 07-03-09 10:56 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#19 07-03-09 11:19 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#20 07-04-09 11:13 am

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#21 07-04-09 12:21 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#22 07-04-09 1:00 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#23 07-04-09 1:51 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#24 07-04-09 2:41 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

#25 07-04-09 2:54 pm

Re: Another Politician blows it!

Board footer