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

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 58 Old 06-18-2006, 11:01 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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. ;-)
Quote:
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?
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
#32 of 58 Old 06-18-2006, 11:11 PM
 
Attached Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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 is offline  
#33 of 58 Old 06-18-2006, 11:19 PM
 
Attached Mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,837
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
Attached Mama is offline  
#34 of 58 Old 06-19-2006, 04:18 AM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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?

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#35 of 58 Old 06-19-2006, 04:28 AM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...t=laura+letter

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#36 of 58 Old 06-19-2006, 05:33 AM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
merpk is offline  
#37 of 58 Old 06-19-2006, 08:09 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.)
DaryLLL is offline  
#38 of 58 Old 06-19-2006, 11:55 AM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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 is offline  
#39 of 58 Old 06-19-2006, 12:00 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
#40 of 58 Old 06-19-2006, 07:54 PM
 
PrincessDoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
PrincessDoll is offline  
#41 of 58 Old 06-19-2006, 10:15 PM
 
Charles Baudelaire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,052
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessDoll
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 be sure, healthy and appropriate self-esteem would probably help, but I'm not entirely certain that this quality is necessary to "do unto others." Even a little kid can understand that if they don't want to have someone hit them, then they shouldn't hit someone. Why? No issue of self-love, really -- more like, "Hitting hurts. Ow."
Charles Baudelaire is offline  
#42 of 58 Old 06-20-2006, 03:35 AM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Baudelaire
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.
The letter was addressed to Dr. Laura, who was supposedly an "orthodox jew" at the time. How is that knocking christians? Chistians do not claim to obey the letter of the "OT" law. Jews,however do obey those verses from the torah. And it is annoying to see laws misinterpreted just for somone's humor. A menstruating woman is not "unclean", etc. The misrepresentation of laws *I actually keep"* bothers me.

BTW, there is no such thing as "the ten commandments" (aseres hadibros means 10 utterances) and the 10 utterances are no more binding than any of the other 603 mitzvos in the torah, to jews all 613 mitzvos are required. For non jews, 7.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#43 of 58 Old 06-20-2006, 08:32 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird
The letter was addressed to Dr. Laura, who was supposedly an "orthodox jew" at the time. How is that knocking christians? Chistians do not claim to obey the letter of the "OT" law.
But they do.

Or they claim to, but are inconsistent about it, which is the point of the whole thread.

Altho, as I said earlier, the OP concerns a couple passages from Proverbs, which is not part of the Torah anyway.

There is much controversy about how to follow the Torah and obey the mitzvot, even for Jews. That is why you have the huge volume of literature known as the Talmud, not to mention the Midrashim.

As well, the different branches of modern Judaism disagree on the validity of the mitzvot.

From jewfaq.org

Quote:
The scriptures also specify the mutual obligations created by these relationships [betwen God and humans, and humans and humans], although various movements of Judaism disagree about the nature of these obligations. Some say they are absolute, unchanging laws from G-d (Orthodox); some say they are laws from G-d that change and evolve over time (Conservative); some say that they are guidelines that you can choose whether or not to follow (Reform, Reconstructionist).
DaryLLL is offline  
#44 of 58 Old 06-20-2006, 09:09 AM
 
cielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sendaria
Posts: 1,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird

BTW, there is no such thing as "the ten commandments" (aseres hadibros means 10 utterances) and the 10 utterances are no more binding than any of the other 603 mitzvos in the torah, to jews all 613 mitzvos are required. For non jews, 7.
The Torah sets out 7 laws for non-Jews? That seems kind of presumptuous. Is it to OT to ask for more information on this?
cielle is offline  
#45 of 58 Old 06-20-2006, 09:56 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
google noahide law.

It is similar to what Peter decides is required for Gentile converts, as stated in Acts.

ETA, here you go:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/chrnoach1.html
DaryLLL is offline  
#46 of 58 Old 06-20-2006, 06:54 PM
 
cielle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sendaria
Posts: 1,370
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
google noahide law.

It is similar to what Peter decides is required for Gentile converts, as stated in Acts.

ETA, here you go:

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/chrnoach1.html
Thanks!
cielle is offline  
#47 of 58 Old 06-20-2006, 10:31 PM
 
SaraFR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm sorry to chime in here when this post doesn't really apply to the original topic. Since I'm not Christian, I can't give you the Christian interpretation of that verse.

Quote:
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.
I'm not familiar with the NT so perhaps I'm misunderstanding what was written here. Are the Pharisees supposed to be refering to the Rabbis of the time? I thought that's what the term refered to but that wouldn't make sense in this case. I don't really know the English version of things since I use the original Hebrew version. That's why I may not seem familiar with certain terms (even if they are refering to the Jews).

Jewish law holds that one needs to save a life over the sabbath. For example, my son fell off a chair right before the first passover seder. He cut open his chin. On passover (when Orthodox Jews hold driving is forbidden) DURING the seder, I got into a car (we used a taxi to be less problematic) and took my son to the hospital because we couldn't risk his chin getting infected and all of the severe repercussions that would, G-d forbid, come with that. With this law in mind (of saving life taking precedence over the sabbath) I am having trouble understanding what was quoted above. I apologize if I misunderstood. TIA!

Quote:
The Torah sets out 7 laws for non-Jews? That seems kind of presumptuous. Is it to OT to ask for more information on this?
I actually think it makes us unique since we don't believe you need to be Jewish to serve G-d or to gain eternal reward. I hope this doesn't come off as being offensive or judgemental as that's not my intentions. ANY non-Jew who lives the right type of life can be considered serving G-d. A gentile isn't forbidden from eating a ham sandwich with cheese, need not keep the sabbath, etc...but can still lead a virtuous life by following the basic moral obligations of the Noahide Laws. Yad Vashem, the well respected Holocaust museum in Israel, has an entire section devoted to the "Righteous Gentiles" who were willing to defy the immoral law of the time and helped save Jewish lives. One look at the laws and you can see that they mostly cover what most of us consider to be a sound and moral life (ie no murder).

You asked for more information and I will try to provide some more. Unfortunately, I'm not personally familiar with the details, I just know an overview. On the other hand, Vendyl Jones is himself a Noahide and his website features links to more information on the Noahide lifestyle. His website is http://www.vendyljones.org.il/

You will better recognize him as "Indiana Jones". If I'm not mistaken he's the original that the Indiana Jones character was fashioned after.
SaraFR is offline  
#48 of 58 Old 06-20-2006, 11:07 PM
 
canadiyank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
But they do.

Or they claim to, but are inconsistent about it, which is the point of the whole thread.
Right. I am very inconsistent...I think Christians get most of the "rules" handed down from tradition and a few from the NT that we either follow or explain away. We talk about God's "will" a LOT, but not what that means or looks like... eta...or, we overdo it and turn it into the worst form of legalism and not based on anything from the Bible (for example, my friend belongs to a denomination where the men are forbidden to have facial hair...).

Meghan, mom to 11yo, 8yo, and 3yo 

canadiyank is offline  
#49 of 58 Old 06-21-2006, 12:20 AM
 
angelpie545's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near water, with a refreshing rain
Posts: 6,669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiyank
Right. I am very inconsistent...I think Christians get most of the "rules" handed down from tradition and a few from the NT that we either follow or explain away. We talk about God's "will" a LOT, but not what that means or looks like... eta...or, we overdo it and turn it into the worst form of legalism and not based on anything from the Bible (for example, my friend belongs to a denomination where the men are forbidden to have facial hair...).
I have to agree...it becomes such a form of legalism...a main reason why I stopped attending denominations...there is so much legality there.

Bethany, crunchy Christian mom to Destiny (11) Deanna (9), and Ethan (2)

angelpie545 is offline  
#50 of 58 Old 06-21-2006, 01:31 AM - Thread Starter
 
mrsfatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Twin Cities area, MN
Posts: 1,749
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessDoll
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?
Yes, he's a Christian--he's soon to be a southern baptist minister...a friend from college (a secular university--he's in seminary now). I could ask him if he's interested in going into prayer about it...but most of our contact is online.

I'm sorry to be gone so much--we're in the middle of a move.
mrsfatty is offline  
#51 of 58 Old 06-23-2006, 12:41 AM
 
orangebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Barack's Camp, and still loving Mah
Posts: 7,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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."
Someone please help me with my comprehension skills here. The above quote seems to say to me that Jesus is saying the law still applies. That we are by no means to break the law or convince anyone else to break the law and that the law will continue to apply until "everything is accomplished". By "everything is accomplished" I assumed that meant until the end of times, like it says righ there until heaven and earth disappear, so how is this quote proving that the law is not important anymore?

Quote:
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.
That is the next parqagraph by the OP of the Jesus quote. But anyway, how am I interpreting it wrong?
orangebird is offline  
#52 of 58 Old 06-23-2006, 03:36 AM
 
canadiyank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,995
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, mara, there's about a million interpretations to that (of course!)...I would say most Christians take those verses to believe that Jesus fulfilled the Law in the sense that the OT Law no longer applies. Others take it that he was the fulfillment of the Law and interpreted it more correctly/fully, but that we are still to follow the Sabbath, dietary laws, etc. I know people on both sides of the fence. I think I'm more on the latter, but I don't follow those Laws, so I'm very hypocritical. For example, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that the Sabbath is, well, the Sabbath, yet I go to church on Sunday and cram as many things into the weekend as possible. That's not honoring the Sabbath and keeping it holy any way you look at it...even if you consider Sunday the "Christian" Sabbath (ugh), I still don't keep it restful...

Meghan, mom to 11yo, 8yo, and 3yo 

canadiyank is offline  
#53 of 58 Old 06-23-2006, 09:47 AM
 
laurabfig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CA
Posts: 713
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelpie545
As a Christian I do have to agree with you. I personally think when Jesus says "rod" He means discipline in general, not a rod to hit with. In those times, a rod was used to guide sheep. The sheep *feared* the shepard with his rod, becuase they knew he would keep them in line. When I say "fear" I don't mean the sheep were afraid they would hurt them, they just knew they had to listen to them.

I believe that Jesus simply means that we should not let our children run wild but rather guide them and raise them to be respectful and diligent. I do not think He meant we had to spank our children by any means. I think He was more saying that we need to protect our children and love them with discipline to warm their hearts to Him. I don't think by any means he mandated us to spank them, but rather to gently discipline them.

In Ephesians, it says "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right."
It also says in Ephesians "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger" and also in the new Testament(I'll have to find the passage and book, sorry: ) again no to provoke your children to anger and dishearten them. This, IMO, reiterates that we need to take great care with our children and discipline them with love and nuturing, not with anger and humiliation.
I just want to say that I appreciate the sensitivity with which you wrote this and I completely agree. I couldn't have expressed my own views better.

Laura- Wife to Jose, Mami to Adela (9/02) reading.gif, Lucas (2/04) REPlaySkateboard04HL.gif, and Ray (10/10) baby.gif.
 
 
 
laurabfig is offline  
#54 of 58 Old 06-27-2006, 04:53 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 25,918
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have removed quite a few posts that were not only completely off-topic to this thread, but many that were in clear violation of the spirit of the Religious Studies forum guidelines. Please feel free to start a new discussion outside of this thread.

Please, please take a moment to look over the Forum guidelines:

Quote:
The Religious Studies forum is for the academic discussion of religious and spiritual matters. This is where the tough questions may be asked. Please do not take it personally when someone questions your own particular faith or belief system or posts an interpretation or opinion that does not support your belief. Questions and their discussion are not to be construed as being judgemental, but should rather be seen as an honest plea for a deeper understanding.

The MDC User Agreement still applies and members posting here will be expected to uphold their discussion with the utmost respect and consideration for participants and readers. Personal attacks will not be tolerated nor comments that are negative of an individual or group. If you feel someone has broken any rules, please contact a moderator immediately rather than replying to the thread in question. Please refrain from sarcasm and insulting or denigrating remarks that might negate the purpose of this forum. Those who cannot abide by these guidelines will not be permitted to post here.
Insensitivity within this forum will not be tolerated.

If you have any questions about the appropriateness of a post, or questions or concerns about anything within this forum, please do not hesitate to PM me.

Thanks everyone for your continued cooperation!

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
#55 of 58 Old 06-27-2006, 05:24 PM
Banned
 
DebraBaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 5,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Should we start another thread that addresses the ot?
DebraBaker is offline  
#56 of 58 Old 06-27-2006, 06:10 PM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaraFR
I hope this doesn't come off as being offensive or judgemental as that's not my intentions.
How could it? And how could it be presumptuous? G-d made a covenant with noah. Its between G-d and the children of Noah.

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#57 of 58 Old 06-27-2006, 06:14 PM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 25,918
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DebraBaker
Should we start another thread that addresses the ot?
Please feel free to do so! I was going to suggest starting a new thread last night when I'd first noticed the thread go astray, but I fell asleep instead. I won't make that mistake again

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
#58 of 58 Old 06-27-2006, 06:17 PM
Banned
 
DebraBaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 5,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I kept getting responses via email and, quite frankly, forgot just how much it departed from it's original intent.
DebraBaker is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off