Stupidest 'sin'

Post Reply New Topic

AngelRho:

You don't know what God wants. However, you may know what the Bible claims God wants, and even in there, it's still too confusing to know exactly what he wants.

In my view, the wants of God, Allah, Zeus, Shiva- they're all irrelevant, we are really talking about the actions of people here. Divine sanction is not part of my vocabulary. Sorry guys

I agree. My response wasn't to you but to AngelRho.

I'm in agreement with the atheists here, and I'm a pagan myself. I'm coming from the viewpoint that, yeah, some pagan cultures in the past did do some pretty nasty things...but so did monotheistic cultures, and yet the monotheists are happy to turn round and say how evil the pagans were, while glossing over their own very prominent nastinesses as 'what God told us to do' - somehow morally correct simply because they were ordered by that particular god.

I recognize that human understanding of how to live a moral life has changed. F'rinstance: The people of Neolithic northern Europe used to sacrifice people in bogs. There are elaborately trussed, drugged and murdered-by-multiple-methods mummies in various museums to attest to that fact. While these people, as pagans, thought this was a good way to honor their gods, I, and doubtless the overwhelming majority of modern neopagans, see it as wrong, and not particularly honorable, and admit that, heck, you know, our ancestors goofed. So, I find it kind of weird when modern-day Christians turn round and try and justify what their ancient counterparts did. And, maybe it seems ideological, but in my lifetime there have been people trying to petition the government of my country to ban my religion, on exactly the grounds that the Hebrews used to wipe out the Canaanites (and yes, that included accusing people of sacrificing babies)...so, naturally, my tendency with such accusations in earlier history is to be very, very careful about who's making them and why.

Well, I think it's also possible that Christians themselves either don't recognize the difference or haven't even really thought much about it. When I talk about the attitudes and justifications for the actions of the ancient Israelites, all I'm going on is the best evidence that is available to us and, in many ways, is the ONLY evidence we have. It's illogical to assume JUST BECAUSE the record of those thoughts and deeds is in a religious text that it is inaccurate. Assume it to be false, and, well, anything goes. But IF it is true, then it speaks volumes for how those people saw themselves, their relationship to their God, and what God's will for them was.

There are a LOT of differences between those times and issues and Christianity. The OT applied strictly to the Israelites and was not intended for guidance for outsiders. Now, yes, if you visited Israel back then and had to stay for an extended time, you would have to familiarize yourself with their customs because as a "resident alien" you were required to do certain things just as the natives were. This is no different from learning the customs of foreign nations you might have a reason to visit, particularly in nations that have certain attitudes towards women and clothing. I'm not saying that's RIGHT, but as a matter of survival in hopes of visiting and returning safely home, there are just certain things you're going to want to do or just not go at all. So, for foreigners living in Israel, the Bible (OT) was useful. But upon leaving Israel, if you have no intention of converting to their religion and living among them, you have no need to follow Torah but rather return to the laws and customs of your homeland.

To my knowledge, and I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Israel now is not a theocracy. Until it becomes one and temple worship is reestablished, the OT has little relevance to its original purpose, which was to establish such a theocracy. As such, the returning Israelites from Egypt during the Exodus had a right to do what they did. But you also have to keep in mind that their actions were restricted to their inheritance. They had no need to attack the surrounding nations except in defense of their homeland. With very little exception, genocide was not a standard practice of the Israelites BEYOND the borders of Canaan.

Christians cannot reasonably understand the actions of God and the Israelites of the OT time to condone their own actions of destruction against other people. Not once in the NT are Christians called to eradicate pagans or wage holy war. The only "holy war" that we fight is a personal fight against evil. Now, there is the question of whether war is ever justified, or whether war may be called a "just war." If the purpose of fighting a war is to protect our friends, whether allied nations or our own national defense, then I would say that the war is justified. The Bible poses no objections to the defense of a nation and that nation's interests or sphere of influence. But this kind of war is not a "holy war" because it is not directly God's purpose for which we are fighting--but rather our own, and it is understandable that nations will act to defend themselves and seek justice for their own people.

Now, that doesn't mean that Christians at times NEVER fought what they considered to be "Holy War" or that they weren't guilty of other atrocities. The OT does not speak to Christians regarding an earthly inheritance or the need to convert unbelievers or kill them. Neither does the NT teach that this is proper. So Christians who claimed to fight a "Holy War" cannot be said to be following Biblical advice in doing so.

It seems to me that we are throwing everything in the hopper here and just labelling transgression as, "sin."

Let's remember that the the Torah was (and is) the code of laws for the well ordering of a flourishing society.

Is it ridiculous that we impose consumer protection standards? Perhaps the prohibition against blended cloth was to ensure that what a weaver said was silk could be seen to be so, without having cheaper fibers mixed in to make the more expensive fibres go farther.

In this day and age we view our laws as arising from a sovereign commonality. This was not the case in ancient times, but we should judge the wisdom of those laws on the basis of their ability to well order a community of their time.

True, and that would also be consistent with a call for honest weights and measures and so forth. No, there is nothing wrong at all with consumer protection. But this would also appear to lower the standards for the materials used in the Tabernacle. Two different materials being used seems contrary to "do not mix fibers." So it would seem that single-fiber material or using different single-fiber materials together have unique purposes. One would be for sacred use, the other for common use. Perhaps if consumer protection is in view here, the prohibition against mixed cloth has a dual purpose: To be sure that people were getting what they paid for and to be sure that certain kinds of mixtures were set aside strictly in obedience to God.


True. I do feel that the laws certainly CAN have modern application. But the observance of or the breaking of some of those laws are contingent on context. It is unjust, for example, to "cut off" someone who doesn't not bring sacrifices to the temple year after year because, well, there's no temple. While still inappropriate behavior, the reason for the death penalty for sex crimes had to do with disrupting the family line. Further, there was no concept of the afterlife, just a belief in "something." So if a man's name died out in his family, he was thought to completely cease to exist forever. While not excusing the behavior itself, birth control methods and paternity testing help ensure that the father's children really are his, hence premarital sex and adultery do not pose the same kind of threat that was perceived in ancient times. In the absence of a theocratic government, there is no need to impose religion on a nation and thus no need for a death penalty for worshiping whatever god you want. I don't recall reading anywhere that someone who did not wish to be part of the Israelite community and subject to the worship of God couldn't just leave. We never hear much about Canaanite survivors, no doubt there were some who survived because they managed to escape to an area outside the boundaries of Canaan (not talking about the forced laborers that remained). I wonder if our tendency to demonize the ancient Israelites for their actions takes the historical and religious context for granted. I think living in a "free society" obscures the realities of ancient life, and there really is no comparison.

Another example: the status of women. Eve was created as Adam's helper. Nowhere is it written that Eve was to be treated as subservient to Adam as per any commandment of God. It just says that by the nature of a fallen world and a corrupted human nature, the male dominance over women was a natural course that was to be expected. I think we've grown too accustomed to the criticism that Biblical laws existed to reinforce these attitudes towards women, and that simply isn't true. Application of Torah to the status of women presupposed a world that generally viewed women as nothing more than property. It provided protection of women despite their circumstances. Laws concerning rape, for instance, grant women enormous power over male oppressors because in certain situations all that was needed was the woman's word that she'd been violated. We avoid these mistakes today by simply accepting that women are deserving of the same status and recognition as men.

And, along the lines of consumer protectionism, don't forget lex talionis, which is pretty much the standard of crime and punishment in Western society. While Torah has to be understood in the context it was written, is it not interesting what parallels there are in contemporary law and order?