Arg!!! Bible and spanking...again... - Page 2

[MelanieMC]

Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire

Okay, to me, it's actually very simple. Ask him these questions, if you want:

1. Are you a Christian?
2. Who's the most important person to Christians?
3. So, Christ is more important than, say, Matthew?
4. How about Peter? Paul?
5. How about Abraham? Moses?

I am assuming that he will say "Yes" to #3-5. If he does, then ask him why Christ is more important than all of them.

6. So, if Abraham said X and Christ said Y, which one should a good Christian follow?
7. So, if the Old Testament said "An eye for an eye," and Christ said, "Turn the other cheek," which should I do?

By then, you have him boxed into a corner: you have him admitting that a central tenet of the Old Testament's law (an eye for an eye) is superseded by the Christian idea of "turn the other cheek." You have Christ being more important that Abraham and Moses, and that logically includes anyone of lesser importance...like Isaiah, whom I believe was the attributed author of Proverbs.

So, at this point, you get to move in for the coup de grace:

9. How hard did Mary spank Jesus?

If he argues that Jesus never misbehaved, bring up the fact that Jesus ran off from his parents and hung out in the Temple until they were frantic.

10. Would Jesus spank?

That should get him. Bottom line, if you're a Christian, you do as Christ does, or you try to. Otherwise, you're not really a Christian. You're a Testamentarian, or some other such thing, but you're not a CHRIST-ian.

:
As Christians we are bound to follow Christ over any Old Testament laws or sayings.

[beccaboomom]

[QUOTEAs Christians we are bound to follow Christ over any Old Testament laws or sayings.][/QUOTE] Can you please list some scriptures that indicate this for me to read?

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by mrsfatty

"Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell.[sic]"

At the time this was written, the Hebews had no concept of hell. This is incorrectly translated. It must be from the King James Version which is notorious for mistranslations.

The correct word is sheol which means pit. At the time, it was thought all humans, no matter how virtuous, went to sheol when they died, so that verse is quite strange.

[Charles Baudelaire]

Originally Posted by beccaboomom

Can you please list some scriptures that indicate this for me to read?

Uhh...didn't you read my rather long and extensively cited post above, BBM?? In case not, here it is again:
*****************
Then hit him -- metaphorically speaking, of course -- with this: Jesus said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Apparently, Jesus knew that there would be people out there who basically would not get it, and so he thoughtfully provided the Cliffs Notes version of his philosophy: that the whole of the law, the summary of the Law and the Prophets, all comes down to treating others as you yourself would be treated. The next time your friend offends you, would he appreciate it if you spanked him? How about if you offend him? That puts another twist in the "turn the other cheek" idea, doesn't it?

Bottom line -- no pun intended -- your friend is ignoring the fact that Jesus' philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with much of Old Testament philosophy, and helpfully enough, the Bible happens to agree on this point.

Proof:

Ephesians 2:15 states, "He [Jesus] did away with the law of the commandments in regulations." Moreover, Galatians 2:14 states, "I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14).
In short, if your friend is a believer in the Old Testament's law and believes that it supersedes the philosophy of Christ, then by all means, I suggest he convert to Judaism, although learning Hebrew's a real pain.

If he wants more proof that the New Testament's law supersedes the Old for Christians, check these references. Good luck to your goy friend on his conversion.

(Rom.13:8,9 & 3:21 & 7:6 & 13:8 & 13:10 - 2Cor.3:5,6 & 3:13,16 - Gal.2:12 & 3:2,3 & 3:5 & 3:10 & 3:11 & 3:19 & 3:23 & 3:24,25 & 4:31 & 5:2 - Eph.2:15 & 3:4,5 - Phil.3:8,9 - Col.2:14 & 2:16 & 2:20 - Heb.8:7,8 & 10:20).

[Charles Baudelaire]

Hey! I bet BBM has blocked my posts!!! Would someone else copy what I said for her??? Far be it from me to prevent a soi-disant Christian from understanding that doing what Jesus suggested is really the right way to go.

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by beccaboomom

Can you please list some scriptures that indicate this for me to read?

Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire

Uhh...didn't you read my rather long and extensively cited post above, BBM?? In case not, here it is again:
*****************
Then hit him -- metaphorically speaking, of course -- with this: Jesus said, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12). Apparently, Jesus knew that there would be people out there who basically would not get it, and so he thoughtfully provided the Cliffs Notes version of his philosophy: that the whole of the law, the summary of the Law and the Prophets, all comes down to treating others as you yourself would be treated. The next time your friend offends you, would he appreciate it if you spanked him? How about if you offend him? That puts another twist in the "turn the other cheek" idea, doesn't it?

Bottom line -- no pun intended -- your friend is ignoring the fact that Jesus' philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with much of Old Testament philosophy, and helpfully enough, the Bible happens to agree on this point.

Proof:

Ephesians 2:15 states, "He [Jesus] did away with the law of the commandments in regulations." Moreover, Galatians 2:14 states, "I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14).
In short, if your friend is a believer in the Old Testament's law and believes that it supersedes the philosophy of Christ, then by all means, I suggest he convert to Judaism, although learning Hebrew's a real pain.

If he wants more proof that the New Testament's law supersedes the Old for Christians, check these references. Good luck to your goy friend on his conversion.

(Rom.13:8,9 & 3:21 & 7:6 & 13:8 & 13:10 - 2Cor.3:5,6 & 3:13,16 - Gal.2:12 & 3:2,3 & 3:5 & 3:10 & 3:11 & 3:19 & 3:23 & 3:24,25 & 4:31 & 5:2 - Eph.2:15 & 3:4,5 - Phil.3:8,9 - Col.2:14 & 2:16 & 2:20 - Heb.8:7,8 & 10:20).

Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire

Hey! I bet BBM has blocked my posts!!! Would someone else copy what I said for her??? Far be it from me to prevent a soi-disant Christian from understanding that doing what Jesus suggested is really the right way to go.

:

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by DaryLLL

At the time this was written, the Hebews had no concept of hell. This is incorrectly translated. It must be from the King James Version which is notorious for mistranslations.

The correct word is sheol which means pit. At the time, it was thought all humans, no matter how virtuous, went to sheol when they died, so that verse is quite strange.

Here is the RSV translation.

Pro 23:13-14 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod you will save his life from Sheol.

Life, not soul. The second verse merely repeats the first. It says, beating your child will not cause death. It will prevent him from dying.

Now, we know we all die. We know that the Hebrews of this time did not have a concept of resurrection and everlasting life. We also know the Hebrews did not have semi-colons or other punctuation (or vowels for that matter!). So it could be expressed this way.

Do not withhold discipline from a child.

If you beat him with a rod he will not die.
If you beat him with the rod you will save his life from the grave.

If taken literally, this passage is a lie. We all know that a beating with a large wooden instrument, if long enough and hard enough, can cause death. One to two thousands children die from beatings every year in the US alone. So, it stands to reason, this passage is not meant to be taken literally. Proverbs is often poetic and metaphorical, and it is to me obvious this passage is a metaphor.


see http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin13.htm for both sides of the argument


Exodus 21 discusses situations in which a person must be punished if he beats someone to death.

Exd 21:12 Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.

Exd 21:20 When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.

So, it is acknowledged that striking someone can cause death. And the punishment for that is death of the perpetrator. This directly contradicts the literal interpretation of the Proverbs passage. The rod in Proverbs cannot be the same rod as is mentioned in Exodus. The "rod" in Proverbs is a metaphor for parental authority and guidance, like our saying, "the long arm of the law." It does not mean a literal arm.

[beccaboomom]

I bet BBM has blocked my posts!!!

I don't.

Matthew5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 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 evertyhing is acoomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpassed the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

This is what Jesus had to say about the Law. The law was given so that we would now what sin is and how we are to live. Thanks to Jesus and his great sacrifice we live under grace and not the law. If we were to live under the law we would never be able to enter heaven. But , even though we live under grace, it does not make the law irrelavant. Jesus himself used quoted the Old Testament. If Jesus thought the Old Testament was the Truth, why should christian conveniently disregard what is taught in the Old Testament? It is a fine line between having freedom in Christ and living holy lives pleasing to God.

Romans 6:15-18 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer youselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey-whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you used to be slaves to sin , you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

[Charles Baudelaire]

Originally Posted by beccaboomom

I don't.

Matthew5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 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 evertyhing is acoomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpassed the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."


This is what Jesus had to say about the Law. The law was given so that we would now what sin is and how we are to live. Thanks to Jesus and his great sacrifice we live under grace and not the law. If we were to live under the law we would never be able to enter heaven. But , even though we live under grace, it does not make the law irrelavant. Jesus himself used quoted the Old Testament. If Jesus thought the Old Testament was the Truth, why should christian conveniently disregard what is taught in the Old Testament? It is a fine line between having freedom in Christ and living holy lives pleasing to God.

Then riddle me this, Batman: What does Jesus mean when he says "the law"? Maybe this is more of a question for Darylll, but it would seem to me that the Law is the essential law of Moses, the ten commandments, and that they still apply.

However, the fact of the matter is that Jesus said many things which directly contradict the other ideas and philosophies of the Old Testament and chief among them is the notion under Mosaic law of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Christ's law, that of turning the other cheek and returning nonviolence for violence is clearly very different in purpose, philosophy, nature, and result. He also said that the fundamental summation of the law -- in case you weren't sure -- was to treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated, in agreement with Hillel. In short, I'm not a Biblical scholar; I like to keep things simple. If I want my husband to spank me for forgetting and leaving my purse in the car, I guess that's how I should treat my child...but I don't want him to do that. If I think I should smack my husband with a rod for not clearing away his crud from the coffee table, that's how I should treat my child...but I don't want to do that.

Now, just to be utterly nitpicky, BBM, how do you like your cheeseburger?

Oh, yeah -- that's right. If you're really obeying the law, you don't get to eat one of those because you might be eating a calf seethed in his mother's milk. Does your husband shake hands with women he meets? Because they might be menstruating (Leviticus 15:19-24) and they're considered unclean. Has he figured out a polite way to ask them? Oh, and it's okay to buy slaves from the nations around us, according to Leviticus 25:44. Are your slaves Canadian or Mexican? Oh, and I guess you're not going to be eating out at Red Lobster anytime soon (Leviticus 10:10), but gefilte fish is okay!

See my point? You said yourself you can't pick and choose.

Seriously, though -- I think Christ made it very clear how to treat others, and "others" includes kids.

[DaryLLL]

Well, strictly speaking, Charles, the "law" is the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible. Proverbs is not part of the Torah.

But Exodus, where the punishment (ie: death) for beating someone to death, is.

As well, Jews have a strong tradition that the oral Torah, also given to Moses on Mt Sinai, expands and interprets the written one, and this further elucidation is included in the Mishnah.

BBM seems unable to comprehend that Jesus is shown as having softened parts of the Torah, and expanded other parts of it. As did other rabbis (esp Hillel) of his time. As did Paul from Damascus. As did the Essenes from the caves at Qumran on the Dead Sea. As did the Hellenists such as the Herods. As did the diaspora Jews in Alexandria and Babylon. The Bible clearly reflects the Hebrews' evolving view of god and community. Even the 5th book of the Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy (written post-exile), reinterprets the previous 4 books, by focusing on centralising worship in Jerusalem.

[Charles Baudelaire]

Originally Posted by DaryLLL

Well, strictly speaking, Charles, the "law" is the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible. Proverbs is not part of the Torah.

Thanks so much -- I knew you'd come through for us, Darylll. I wasn't sure precisely how much was being boiled down there. ;-)

But Exodus, where the punishment (ie: death) for beating someone to death, is.

As well, Jews have a strong tradition that the oral Torah, also given to Moses on Mt Sinai, expands and interprets the written one, and this further elucidation is included in the Mishnah.

BBM seems unable to comprehend that Jesus is shown as having softened parts of the Torah, and expanded other parts of it. As did other rabbis (esp Hillel) of his time. As did Paul from Damascus. As did the Essenes from the caves at Qumran on the Dead Sea. As did the Hellenists such as the Herods. As did the diaspora Jews in Alexandria and Babylon. The Bible clearly reflects the Hebrews' evolving view of god and community. Even the 5th book of the Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy (written post-exile), reinterprets the previous 4 books, by focusing on centralising worship in Jerusalem.

Okay, call me silly here, but what I don't understand, being mostly an outsider to both Christianity and Judaism, is this: Arguing that the words of Christ as reported in the synoptic gospels are true and accurate (I know, I know...), why is it that the people who call themselves Christian don't practice what Christ is saying is the. most. important. thing: treat others as you would wish to be treated? When Christ heals someone on the Sabbath and the Pharisees ding him for "working" on the holy day, he makes his position in relation to the law pretty clear: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The law, therefore, is fundamentally to serve, to make society function as society, to provide basic rules by which we live our lives in relative harmony with each other. It wasn't made so that people live in slavish obedience to every dot and slash. Moreover, human compassion -- the kind of compassion needed to put aside the Sabbath's injunction against work in order to help a suffering human being -- trumps everything, even the holiest day of the week.

Compassion, peace, consideration of others...why don't most Christians -- at least many vocally Christian Christians -- put this into practice? Why isn't the "do unto others" law the litmus test against which all other actions -- going to war, spanking a child, paying a tax, giving to a guy with a cardboard sign on the street, driving the speed limit -- done with this idea firmly in mind?

I don't get it. Would someone smarter than I please relieve me of my ignorance?

[Attached Mama]

have not read all the responses, but as far as hermeneutically correct interpretation....

You can take symbollically what the Bible uses as a symbol in other places. There are numerous passages where it talks about the Rod of Jesse, Rod of .... other tribes of Israel/Judah. It is speaking symbolically of the authority of that tribe.

If you are going to take things literally, then like you started to point out, you must interpret it all literally (if you don't follow these 2 "rules" of Biblical interpretation, then you can literally make the Bible say anything that you want it to). So if taken literally - rod = a shepherd's staff or according to Gesenius concordance "something strong enough for a man to lean on". The word "Beat" as in the other prov passages - means to beat within an inch of ones life basically. The same Hebrew word that is translated "beat" in proverbs is elsewhere translated as murder, slaughter etc. As you can see, the literal translation of this passage is not a spanking but to beat within an inch of ones life with a rod strong enough for a man to lean on such as a shepherd's staff or walking stick.

Your friend can't just argue from the one verse he/she has mentioned. They must take that verse in context of all the other verses in Prov and the Bible about the rod and children and raising children. Another vital rule to bib interpretation as again, taking things out of context, one can make the bible say whatever they want it to.

Deuteronomy 28 talks about talking about the things of God when you rise up, lie down, go out, come in etc. NT verses talk about "Woe to those who offend one of these little ones. It would be better for them if a millstone were hung around their neck and they were drowned" and "Provoke not your children to wrath but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord".

So what the Bible is saying is to lovingly but firmly continually remind your children of God's ways - beat (continually remind - constantly hit them with at every turn) with the rod (God's authority - the Bible). Like Deut 28...

How many parents constantly spank, but have 5 min of devotions daily if that. What about reminding children of God and His greatness when you are taking a walk and notice a cool bug or sunset etc etc etc

PM me if you want more exact scripture refs etc I tried to make this reply quick. Hope it helps!

[Attached Mama]

Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire

Thanks so much -- I knew you'd come through for us, Darylll. I wasn't sure precisely how much was being boiled down there. ;-)


Okay, call me silly here, but what I don't understand, being mostly an outsider to both Christianity and Judaism, is this: Arguing that the words of Christ as reported in the synoptic gospels are true and accurate (I know, I know...), why is it that the people who call themselves Christian don't practice what Christ is saying is the. most. important. thing: treat others as you would wish to be treated? When Christ heals someone on the Sabbath and the Pharisees ding him for "working" on the holy day, he makes his position in relation to the law pretty clear: The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The law, therefore, is fundamentally to serve, to make society function as society, to provide basic rules by which we live our lives in relative harmony with each other. It wasn't made so that people live in slavish obedience to every dot and slash. Moreover, human compassion -- the kind of compassion needed to put aside the Sabbath's injunction against work in order to help a suffering human being -- trumps everything, even the holiest day of the week.

Compassion, peace, consideration of others...why don't most Christians -- at least many vocally Christian Christians -- put this into practice? Why isn't the "do unto others" law the litmus test against which all other actions -- going to war, spanking a child, paying a tax, giving to a guy with a cardboard sign on the street, driving the speed limit -- done with this idea firmly in mind?

I don't get it. Would someone smarter than I please relieve me of my ignorance?

Unfortunatley you have hit on the sad truth of the vastness of hypocrisy that exists among Christians. Whether it stems from us wanting to look good, being afraid to fail, being brought up in a legalistic environment - I do not know. And I won't make excuses for it. Many Christians are not very Christ-like when we consider that the Bible says "God (Christ) is Love". I can try to apologize on behalf of my fellow Chrisitans -tho I don't know if I have the authority to do that. Anyway, please know that not all of us are like that - and that it makes some of us very sick to know that the Jesus we love and try hard to live by is being so poorly misrepresented to the world.

[BelovedBird]

Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire

Then riddle me this, Batman: What does Jesus mean when he says "the law"? Maybe this is more of a question for Darylll, but it would seem to me that the Law is the essential law of Moses, the ten commandments, and that they still apply.

However, the fact of the matter is that Jesus said many things which directly contradict the other ideas and philosophies of the Old Testament and chief among them is the notion under Mosaic law of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Christ's law, that of turning the other cheek and returning nonviolence for violence is clearly very different in purpose, philosophy, nature, and result. He also said that the fundamental summation of the law -- in case you weren't sure -- was to treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated, in agreement with Hillel. In short, I'm not a Biblical scholar; I like to keep things simple. If I want my husband to spank me for forgetting and leaving my purse in the car, I guess that's how I should treat my child...but I don't want him to do that. If I think I should smack my husband with a rod for not clearing away his crud from the coffee table, that's how I should treat my child...but I don't want to do that.

Now, just to be utterly nitpicky, BBM, how do you like your cheeseburger?

Oh, yeah -- that's right. If you're really obeying the law, you don't get to eat one of those because you might be eating a calf seethed in his mother's milk. Does your husband shake hands with women he meets? Because they might be menstruating (Leviticus 15:19-24) and they're considered unclean. Has he figured out a polite way to ask them? Oh, and it's okay to buy slaves from the nations around us, according to Leviticus 25:44. Are your slaves Canadian or Mexican? Oh, and I guess you're not going to be eating out at Red Lobster anytime soon (Leviticus 10:10), but gefilte fish is okay!

See my point? You said yourself you can't pick and choose.

Seriously, though -- I think Christ made it very clear how to treat others, and "others" includes kids.

I do not find your version of the dR. Laura letter funny,I find it ignorant and disrespectful.
Ayin tachas ayin is about monetary compensation. I think it is much better for a society to have a codified law about monetary compensation than living by the boloney "turn the other cheek". So christians don't sue each other in court, huh?

[BelovedBird]

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...t=laura+letter

[merpk]

Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire

He also said that the fundamental summation of the law -- in case you weren't sure -- was to treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated, in agreement with Hillel.

Not to be nitpicky, but Hillel actually said something different. He said to *not* treat others as you *do not* wish to be treated.

Sounds similar, yes. But think about it ... there's quite a difference.

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by BelovedBird

Your version of the dR. Laura letter is not funny, it only shows your blinding ignorance (and disrespect).
Ayin tachas ayin is about monetary compensation. I think it is much better for a society to have a codified law about monetary compensation than living by the boloney "turn the other cheek". So christians don't sue each other in court, huh?

'Eye for an eye."

Yes, BB, I once read you writing once on that subject. CB is being neither ignorant or disrespectful to Jews. She is addressing fundamentalist (aka Literalist) Christians who interpret your law and the verse from Proverbs at hand literally. As you know (but many here do not), by contrast, Jews believe there are 4 levels of interpretation for their Scriptures.

Fundie Christians are taught to take it all literally as possible, to only interpret it metaphorically when absolutely neccessary. They call this legalism. Many like to think they are not legalists, but yet they show themselves to be so at every turn.

And eye for an eye, taken literally, is barbaric. So is the death penalty by stoning for a misbehaving child, or for an adulterer or adulteress.

As I said upthread, you have the benefit of the Mishnah/Talmud to interpret (modify or expand) ancient laws that taken at face value can seem barbaric, silly or outmoded. It is your tradition that God himself gave you another law to interpret the written one.

Many Christians are unaware of this, and would not accept it if they were aware. Protestants do not even accept the "Church Fathers" who wrote to interpret the Scriptures at the same time the rabbis did, in the early centuries of the common era. They would say those are the words of men expanding upon the text inspired by God, which is forbidden in one or two passages in the Christian Scriptures.

Revelation of John 22:18-19 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

(Of course, the author of those words was writing about his own short "book," not the entire Hebrew and Christian Scriptures [the second of which had not all even been written yet, much less collected and canonized], but this is not understood by the Literalists.)

[Charles Baudelaire]

Originally Posted by BelovedBird

Your version of the dR. Laura letter is not funny, it only shows your blinding ignorance (and disrespect).
Ayin tachas ayin is about monetary compensation. I think it is much better for a society to have a codified law about monetary compensation than living by the boloney "turn the other cheek". So christians don't sue each other in court, huh?

I regret that it offended you, BB, but my point in paraphrasing the Dr. Laura letter was to express the idea that Christians who theoretically obey the letter of the law actually do not. They do not, as I'm sure we all know, keep kosher, although that is clearly specified. They do not avoid contact with women who are menstruating. Moreover, Christians certainly sue each other in court -- which, although it was not my point directly, supports the point I was trying to make, which is that the idea that "the law" is not observed by Christians -- which, BTW, is the point of the Dr. Laura letter in the first place. If that idea is somehow offensive to you, I'd really appreciate an explanation of why. Perhaps I am wrong and Christians really do keep kosher.

[Charles Baudelaire]

Originally Posted by DaryLLL

'Eye for an eye."

Yes, BB, I once read you writing once on that subject. CB is being neither ignorant or disrespectful to Jews. She is addressing fundamentalist (aka Literalist) Christians who interpret your law and the verse from Proverbs at hand literally. As you know (but many here do not), by contrast, Jews believe there are 4 levels of interpretation for their Scriptures.

Thanks for understanding, Darylll. I confess I was perplexed by BB's anger, because if anything, if I were Jewish I would be particularly offended by conservative Christians who claim to observe the letter of the law and yet quite obviously don't -- literally or otherwise. I would be annoyed beyond belief at how they've disregarded literally thousands of years of Torah scholarship and commentary, yet put on the mantle of religious superiority regardless. Just my opinion.

[PrincessDoll]

Hi, I know I am walking in on your already in progress conversation but since ds is sleeping, I thought maybe a new viewpoint could shed some light on some points?

My view on Jesus and NT teachings regarding the law is that if He spoke on it, then He "fulfilled" that law as per the scripture BB posted. If He did not speak on it, then usually, the old law still stands. So for the cheeseburger comment, the NT does discuss that it isn't what comes in the mouth that makes you unclean but what comes out of the mouth (i.e. vulgarity, etc...). Therefore, the law regarding meat and dairy no longer applies for us.

Also, in regards to why some Christians do not apply the main principle that Jesus stood for as Charles mentioned a lot of times boils down to the sad fact that many people do not love themselves. So if one does not love themself, how then are they to treat others in a loving way?

To the OP, is the person you are in a debate with a Christian? If so, have you ever thought about going into prayer with him/her regarding this divisive issue?