The Off Topic Topic

[Valmy]

Heh. You know if that temple ever gets rebuilt there are going to be people there sacrificing animals.

[11B4V]

Not really. The bequeathing of females as property is an outrage itself. A testament (no pun intended) to the immorality of that comic book.

It was set in an ancient society somewhat lacking a social safety net. Marriage into a clan was their equivalent of social welfare - it was an obligation, not a pleasure.

Much of the shit in the OT looks retarded and cruel - until of course one realizes that the alternative was usually worse.

Take for example the treatment of slaves. Allowing slavery is of course retarded and cruel - however, what the OT does, is allow them at least some rights; the more general alternative was to allow them none.

As a guide to modern living, the OT makes zero sense - one can no more follow it literally, than one can live in a modern society by the rules appropriate to a headhunter in New Guinea. Of course, by our modern standards, guys like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were both criminals deserving of the worst punishment: if they were around now and tried to own people today, we'd throw their asses in jail, and rightly. Does that make them evil and everything they said immoral nonsense? No, because we have the ability to separate out the good stuff from the bad, to adapt what is meaningful to us, and to recognize that they were products of their times.

Mind you, that same advice goes in spade to those lunatics who actually attempt to impose "Biblical values" on the modern world - of course they, like everyone else, cherry-picks which bits they find relevant (even Orthodox Jews do this). It is a sad reflection on them, not on the OT, that they choose to impose the ancient prohibition on male homosexuality, and not (say) the equally ancient requirements for animal sacrifices at the Temple. That's their deliberate choice. 

Thanks for that reply, well said.

[Josephus]

GF: I'm getting spammy ray ban messages from you on Facebook

[Syt]

Yeah, cut that shit and watch where you click. 

[Admiral Yi]

General Wolfe has to eat too.

[alfred russel]

Mind you, that same advice goes in spade to those lunatics who actually attempt to impose "Biblical values" on the modern world - of course they, like everyone else, cherry-picks which bits they find relevant (even Orthodox Jews do this). It is a sad reflection on them, not on the OT, that they choose to impose the ancient prohibition on male homosexuality, and not (say) the equally ancient requirements for animal sacrifices at the Temple. That's their deliberate choice.

To be purely pedantic on this point, from a christian setting it isn't 100% cherry picking. Christian theology from very early times was that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and thus the old ritualistic laws no longer apply, however the moral teachings of the old testament remains binding. There is biblical support for this in the Acts of the Apostles (the decision to not require gentile converts to undergo circumcision).

So is the avoidance of male homosexuality in the Old Testament about maintaining ritualistic purity under the old covenant or a moral teaching? This is debatable, but the letters from Paul in the New Testament appear to condemn homosexuality (though some dispute this as well), which if you take them to be authoritative is evidence of a moral component.

On the other hand, from early on Jesus's death has been seen as the ultimate sacrifice fulfilling the Old Covenant. Continuing animal sacrifices after that point is heretical for almost all christians as it implicitly denies the meaning of the crucifixion.

[Josquius]

The shellfish thing should still be valid though right?

[Malthus]

Mind you, that same advice goes in spade to those lunatics who actually attempt to impose "Biblical values" on the modern world - of course they, like everyone else, cherry-picks which bits they find relevant (even Orthodox Jews do this). It is a sad reflection on them, not on the OT, that they choose to impose the ancient prohibition on male homosexuality, and not (say) the equally ancient requirements for animal sacrifices at the Temple. That's their deliberate choice.

To be purely pedantic on this point, from a christian setting it isn't 100% cherry picking. Christian theology from very early times was that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant and thus the old ritualistic laws no longer apply, however the moral teachings of the old testament remains binding. There is biblical support for this in the Acts of the Apostles (the decision to not require gentile converts to undergo circumcision).

So is the avoidance of male homosexuality in the Old Testament about maintaining ritualistic purity under the old covenant or a moral teaching? This is debatable, but the letters from Paul in the New Testament appear to condemn homosexuality (though some dispute this as well), which if you take them to be authoritative is evidence of a moral component.

On the other hand, from early on Jesus's death has been seen as the ultimate sacrifice fulfilling the Old Covenant. Continuing animal sacrifices after that point is heretical for almost all christians as it implicitly denies the meaning of the crucifixion.

There are usually good, sound reasons for both Jews and Christians to cherry-pick the bits that they find relevant. How, for example, does someone sort out the purely ritual from the purely moral?

One "Biblical" way would be to look at the so-called "Noahide" laws - that is, the laws applicable to Noah (who of course was considered morally upright, but was not a Jew - as he predates Judaism). Even today, in Judaism non-Jews who follow the Noahide laws are considered equally "righteous" as Jews who scrupulously follow the six hundred plus rules of Judaism, indicating that all those extras are more or less ritual. The laws are found in reference in the NT as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

The problem re-emerges when one looks at those laws - what exactly counts as "sexual immorality"? No two Jewish groups agree. 

[Malthus]

The shellfish thing should still be valid though right?

Eating shellfish alive would violate the Noahide laws (thus be immoral for everyone, in Judaism).

Eating shellfish dead would violate Halacha (thus be contrary to Jewish ritual).

[lustindarkness]

Puppy Monkey Baby

[alfred russel]

How, for example, does someone sort out the purely ritual from the purely moral?

Obviously there is ambiguity, but there are a few ways that have been used. The most clear is if it was included in the teaching of Jesus in the gospels. After that, if it was included in other new testament stories. Then you have to look to tradition: the Ten Commandments have long been viewed as moral commandments that are still applicable to Christians. Then consistency with theology.

So there is obviously lots of wiggle room, but not absolute.

[Valmy]

How, for example, does someone sort out the purely ritual from the purely moral?

Obviously there is ambiguity, but there are a few ways that have been used. The most clear is if it was included in the teaching of Jesus in the gospels. After that, if it was included in other new testament stories. Then you have to look to tradition: the Ten Commandments have long been viewed as moral commandments that are still applicable to Christians. Then consistency with theology.

So there is obviously lots of wiggle room, but not absolute.

It is a very valuable thing for all Christians that it is so very vague. If it were clear well then we might be stuck doing stupid shit like throwing homosexuals off buildings. Instead we can just sorta say 'ok this no longer applies for reasons'.

[The Brain]

Wait, there's a religion that throws homosexuals off buildings?

Oh, right.

[Grey Fox]

GF: I'm getting spammy ray ban messages from you on Facebook

Yeah, cut that shit and watch where you click. 

Buy Raybans, plz.

[The Brain]

I once looked at an apartment that had the Ray Ban logo as a tile mosaic in the bathroom. Did not buy.