UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Sounds quite generous: the Sabbath's quite generally taken to have been abolished. Jesus tells us to reject our father and mother. Most Christians seem to have been happy to take the Lord's name in vain, to have graven images, to worship other gods alongside, and to kill.
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Most Christians reckon to keep nine of 'the ten commandements', or maybe taking adultery into account that might be eight.
quote:I thought everyone knew that the answer is 42 (%).
Originally posted by HCH:
To what extent are the strictures of the Old Testament relevant to Christians? I can imagine answers ranging from 100% down to 0%.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Actually, I've heard that some Christians believe that God gave the Ten Commandments precisely to show us that we have no hope of being righteous on our own and that putting effort into obeying them is a form of spiritual pride. Personally, I think such a belief is wrong and counterproductive, but I can sort of understand the reasoning behind it.
On the other hand, I don't think I have heard anyone claim (in so many words) that Christians need not obey the Ten Commandments.
quote:Being Swedenborgian, I use his principle that the Old Testament laws that Christians need not keep are the ones that are purely symbolic (e.g. sacrifices, ritual washing, mixing linen and wool), while the ones that are inherently meaningful should be kept, especially the Ten Commandments. Such a principle requires one to apply reasoning and therefore won't lead everyone to a common view, but it is a principle that one can try to apply consistently.
I am hoping for some opinions and for some amusing inconsistency.
quote:I can't think of a standard more likely to cause confusion than dividing things into the categories of "purely symbolic" and "inherently meaningful". Take, for instance, the stricture against idolatry. Idols are symbols representing a god, so does that make them purely symbolic? Or is the act of worshiping (or not worshiping) one "inherently meaningful"? What kind of meanings are non-inherent (exherent?), and how impure does symbolism have to be before it falls into the other category?
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Being Swedenborgian, I use his principle that the Old Testament laws that Christians need not keep are the ones that are purely symbolic (e.g. sacrifices, ritual washing, mixing linen and wool), while the ones that are inherently meaningful should be kept, especially the Ten Commandments. Such a principle requires one to apply reasoning and therefore won't lead everyone to a common view, but it is a principle that one can try to apply consistently.
quote:I take it as a straightforwardly observable given that God does not seem to be very concerned about avoiding confusion. My own belief is that he gives us the minimum instruction necessary in order to encourage us to do most of the thinking for ourselves.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I can't think of a standard more likely to cause confusion than dividing things into the categories of "purely symbolic" and "inherently meaningful".
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Being Swedenborgian, I use his principle that the Old Testament laws that Christians need not keep are the ones that are purely symbolic (e.g. sacrifices, ritual washing, mixing linen and wool), while the ones that are inherently meaningful should be kept, especially the Ten Commandments. Such a principle requires one to apply reasoning and therefore won't lead everyone to a common view, but it is a principle that one can try to apply consistently.
quote:The principle is about whether the law itself is symbolic, not about whether the subject of the law is symbolic.
Take, for instance, the stricture against idolatry. Idols are symbols representing a god, so does that make them purely symbolic? Or is the act of worshiping (or not worshiping) one "inherently meaningful"?
quote:Good questions, which is why I said that the principle requires us to apply reasoning and will generally lead different people to different conclusions. However, I don't see that as a problem.
What kind of meanings are non-inherent (exherent?), and how impure does symbolism have to be before it falls into the other category?
quote:Laws are usually regarded as symbolic if they have no penalty or enforcement mechanism. By that standard, very little of the First Testament qualifies as "symbolic".
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The principle is about whether the law itself is symbolic, not about whether the subject of the law is symbolic.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The principle is about whether the law itself is symbolic, not about whether the subject of the law is symbolic.
quote:I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile those two statements in an intellectually consistent manner. In the first statement you dismiss the symbolism of the law's subject as unimportant, in the second you claim the reverse. Explanation please?
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
As far as I'm concerned, a lot of the Old Testament laws were (and are) symbolic in that there was no inherent value in following them literally. For example, I don't think people following the law against wearing linen and wool together led better lives as a result of following it. I think the only reason God gave it as a symbolic law was because society at that time was not mature enough yet to follow the spiritual principle it symbolized - they could accept a ritual because it seemed holy, but not a simple principle of life about not letting rules interfere with love (to illustrate a complicated subject with a single sentence).
quote:Idolatry does not always lead to child sacrifice, and avoiding idolatry doesn't necessarily prevent it. This seems like a non-sequitur.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However, anyone who followed the law against idolatry would have led a better life because they would have avoided getting involved in practices like child sacrifice.
quote:The symbolism of the law's subject is important, but that's a distinct question from whether or not a Christian ought to follow the law literally. In my first statement, I'm just saying that the symbolism of the law's subject is not the deciding factor in applying the principle I outlined because it's the symbolism of the law itself that's important, but only with regard to the principle about whether to follow it literally. If that's not sufficient to answer your question, then I'm at a loss to provide a better explanation.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The principle is about whether the law itself is symbolic, not about whether the subject of the law is symbolic.quote:I'm not sure there's a way to reconcile those two statements in an intellectually consistent manner. In the first statement you dismiss the symbolism of the law's subject as unimportant, in the second you claim the reverse. Explanation please?
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
As far as I'm concerned, a lot of the Old Testament laws were (and are) symbolic in that there was no inherent value in following them literally. For example, I don't think people following the law against wearing linen and wool together led better lives as a result of following it. I think the only reason God gave it as a symbolic law was because society at that time was not mature enough yet to follow the spiritual principle it symbolized - they could accept a ritual because it seemed holy, but not a simple principle of life about not letting rules interfere with love (to illustrate a complicated subject with a single sentence).
quote:Of course idolatry does not always lead to child sacrifice, and of course avoiding idolatry doesn't always prevent it, but those are statements about idolatry in the most general case, abstracted away from the specific context of the Old Testament. It is a consistent theme of the Old Testament that the Israelites exhibited a tendency to adopt some of the destructive practices and rituals that came with the idolatrous religions around them at the time. Following the law against idolatry in those circumstances would not have been a purely symbolic gesture. And neither would it be today for any Christian.
quote:Idolatry does not always lead to child sacrifice, and avoiding idolatry doesn't necessarily prevent it. This seems like a non-sequitur.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
However, anyone who followed the law against idolatry would have led a better life because they would have avoided getting involved in practices like child sacrifice.
quote:Nope, still not getting it. I'm not seeing how "don't worship idols" (which is about symbols and symbolism) is literal, but "don't wear mixed fiber fabrics" (which is a fairly literal proscription) is symbolic. Since we've exhausted your explanatory capability I guess we'll have to leave it there.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
The symbolism of the law's subject is important, but that's a distinct question from whether or not a Christian ought to follow the law literally. In my first statement, I'm just saying that the symbolism of the law's subject is not the deciding factor in applying the principle I outlined because it's the symbolism of the law itself that's important, but only with regard to the principle about whether to follow it literally. If that's not sufficient to answer your question, then I'm at a loss to provide a better explanation.
quote:Worship practices that involve idols (theological hair-splitting aside) are generally considered "idolatry". If not, then the term really has no meaning.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
BTW, in what way is Hinduism relevant here? I'm not aware of any aspects of it that might be considered to be idolatry - are you?
quote:In practice, though, it causes little confusion, and has not been the cause of even the slightest controversy in this church. Instead people find it liberating and useful.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I can't think of a standard more likely to cause confusion than dividing things into the categories of "purely symbolic" and "inherently meaningful".
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Being Swedenborgian, I use his principle that the Old Testament laws that Christians need not keep are the ones that are purely symbolic (e.g. sacrifices, ritual washing, mixing linen and wool), while the ones that are inherently meaningful should be kept, especially the Ten Commandments.
quote:Idolatry is an especially easy one. Few people in the West nowadays are inclined to literally make little images that they worship.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Take, for instance, the stricture against idolatry. Idols are symbols representing a god, so does that make them purely symbolic? Or is the act of worshiping (or not worshiping) one "inherently meaningful"? What kind of meanings are non-inherent (exherent?), and how impure does symbolism have to be before it falls into the other category?
quote:The laws about mnixed fabrics, as with the other so-called "laws of holiness" are acted-out symbols of the separatness of Israel as the chosen people. They are part of the covenants with Abraham and Moses and apply to Israel only. They simply aren;t relevant to the rest ofg us, they are not directed at us. As I said on the other thread, for a Gentile to follow those covenant laws would be like a civilian wearing a fake army or navy uniform. It would be a pretence. The rules simply don't apply to us. (other than as part of a conversion to Judaism of course - which I suppose would be like joining the navy or whatever...)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not seeing how "don't worship idols" (which is about symbols and symbolism) is literal, but "don't wear mixed fiber fabrics" (which is a fairly literal proscription) is symbolic.
quote:Given that depictions of Jesus, if not the most commonly produced images in the West are at least in the top 10, I'm not inclined to accept this assertion without further clarification.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Idolatry is an especially easy one. Few people in the West nowadays are inclined to literally make little images that they worship.
Most people would see this as more stupid than wrong.
quote:This just seems like more theological hair-splitting to get around the fact that Christians like to make graven images of their God so they've redefined idolatry to allow the practice. It's certainly not a definition that would be recognizable to Jewish interpreters of the Ten Commandments. I've commented on this before, and there doesn't seem to be any real benefit from taking a term like "idolator", which has a fairly useful and specific meaning, and making it synonymous with the generic "infidel", no matter how theologically or culturally convenient such a blurring of the lines may be.
Originally posted by Freddy:
So while the literal commandment of not carving or molding images that we would set up in a room and say prayers to may not be especially relevant, we all know that we are guilty of devoting ourselves to "idols" that are not God and not especially good.
I would think that this understanding of the commandment would be so obvious that it would be intuitively assumed. It has certainly found its way into our language and literature.
quote:That seems contrary to the Jewish people's historic indifference (or sometimes outright hostility) to the idea of conversion. The God of Israel was precisely that. Whether other people worshiped other gods or false gods or no gods was, at best, an academic consideration.
Originally posted by ken:
The idea that only God may be rightly worshipped is general, not specifically part of the covenant. At least as later interpreted by the prophets - it is arguable that the earlier parts of the OT often think of the LORD as the God of Israel, and other gods as the gods of other peoples.
quote:Depends on when you are talking about. From sometime round about the Exile or a little later, to sometime in the Roman Empire period, there were lots of converts to Judaism. (Even, at one point in the Hasmonean period, forced conversions of conquered cities)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That seems contrary to the Jewish people's historic indifference (or sometimes outright hostility) to the idea of conversion.
quote:This seems wildly out of synch with so much of the Hebrew Testament. It repeatedly talks about all nations coming to Zion in recognition of the primacy of the Lord God.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That seems contrary to the Jewish people's historic indifference (or sometimes outright hostility) to the idea of conversion. The God of Israel was precisely that. Whether other people worshiped other gods or false gods or no gods was, at best, an academic consideration.
Originally posted by ken:
The idea that only God may be rightly worshipped is general, not specifically part of the covenant. At least as later interpreted by the prophets - it is arguable that the earlier parts of the OT often think of the LORD as the God of Israel, and other gods as the gods of other peoples.
quote:I'm talking about the indifference to worship practices of those living outside the territories of the Israelite (or Judean) temple-state. There was insistence on theological conformity within the borders (i.e. the land that was part of God's covenant with Israel), and a general indifference to anything that happened outside. That would seem to indicate that the worship of the God of Israel was regarded as part of the covenant, not some generally applicable standard.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Depends on when you are talking about. From sometime round about the Exile or a little later, to sometime in the Roman Empire period, there were lots of converts to Judaism. (Even, at one point in the Hasmonean period, forced conversions of conquered cities)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That seems contrary to the Jewish people's historic indifference (or sometimes outright hostility) to the idea of conversion.