Hence all the Christian churchgoing on Fridaynight and Saturday? :rolleyes:
First of all, our " week" with Mondays, Fridays etc isn’t in the bible at all. There is just talk of “resting on the seventh day” . The names of the days of our week are even derived from the Norse gods Thor and Freya !
Secondly, what is your point? You are correct, tradionally Jewish Sabbath does start on Friday. But Christians, in general, have picked Sunday as their seventh day of rest. Probably to set themselves apart form Judaism in the first place. Hence all the Churchgoing on Sunday, you know. Actually, untill thirty years ago, many Christians in the USA fought like lions to keep the Sabbath work-free. There were protest agains musicians working on Sunday in bars and concerts in much the same way as there are now Christians protesting against gay marriage and abortion.
Take for instance this link that describes “The first fifty years of Washington”
Other countries* still * honor the Sabbath and close their stores on Sunday. As I posted in the linked thread
Oops: I didn’t include my two links: Link to the Libray of Congress for the historical bit; Link to the threadwith my [EMAIL=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6516701&postcount=29]post about no Sunday shopping in the Netherlands
Because back in those days they only had ONE SIZED FONT and nothing more could be fitted onto a couple of stones light enough for Moses to carry down the mountain.
To respond to the OP- a lot of BIble-believing Jews & Christians consider the anti-Adultery commandment to include all forbidden sexual acts. Heck, bestiality & pedophilia & rape don’t make the Big Ten either. (Necessary note- No, I am not equating those with homosexuality.)
And in spite of Diogenes’ assertion that the NT doesn’t even speak to the subject-
the consensus of even mainstream-to-liberal Christian churches still does not favor gay sex, tho I would not be surprised to see that change in a decade.
Then again, I’ve been expecting the Great Protestant Schism since the mid-80s.
So what? Your assumption that churchgoing is an example of sabbath observance as mandated in the 10 commandments has no basis either from the decalogue or the entire Christian bible.
Oh please. The Norse didn’t invent the seven day week. Translate Sunday as the first day of the week and Saturday as the seventh day. The distinction is quite relevant for example in this passage
The first day of the week appears to be quite significant following this event as the recorded gathering of a Christian assembly takes place on this day
However, In researching for cites in my response to you, a European, I, a North American, uncovered a hitherto unknown (to me) fact regarding these to two days that provide some irrelevancy to our argument. From Wikipedia
In light of this new information I can only conclude that my original rebuttal regarding on which day the sabbath of the ten commandments falls on does not apply to you and a good part of the rest of the world.
Does make you stop and think. This was Jesus. Presumably he loved everybody – all his disciples, all his followers, all his enemies, and all indifferent persons. Why single out one disciple as the one “whom Jesus loved” unless they had a special relationship?
The Ten Commandments are binding only to Jews. But, all humanity is bound by the 7 laws of Noah. One of those laws is ‘No sexual immorality’. The seven are deliberately vague as many laws are meant to be implied by them.
Re Soddom And Gommorah
Any Jewish scholar will tell you two things. First, they will quote Leviticus and say that homosexuality is an abomination. Second, they will tell you the two cities were destroyed because the people there were without compassion. Worshipping idols, and everything else would have been overlooked if they had shown compassion to the stranger.
Friar Ted is correct that many Jews define adultery as ‘sex with anybody who is not your spouse.’. Since rabbis do not marry two men or two women, homosexual sex is adultery by this definition.
Re the Sabbath
Any Jew will tell you that saturday is the Sabbath. I only post on saturdays due to a special arrangement with G-d, and because I am Jew Lite (Now with almonds!)
I would never presume to try to tell you anything about Judaism as if I knew it better than you, Doc, but doesn’t Reconstructionist Judaism wholeheartedly approve religiously-sanctioned same-sex marriage, and doesn’t Reform Judaism, while not firmly coming down on the side of performing same, definitely champions civil same-sex marriage? Do neither of these movements have rabbis as their religious leaders? (That’s not a rhetorical gotcha question, but a genuine one…I have no idea if my assumptions that they do are true or not)
I accidentally left out a qualifier or two. I should have said ‘Those rabbis who hold this definition of adultery, do not perform same sex marriages.’ A Reform or Reconstructionist rabbi may perform same sex marriages, but they tend to hold a different definition of adultery. Note that Reconstructionism places a greater emphasis on the Jews as a people (sometimes to the point of atheism) and would view the purpose of any commandment as purely sociological. Although Reform Judaism in America is moving toward Orthodox, the initial purpose of the Reform movement was to help the Jews integrate into gentile society, and make Judaism easy to observe. Scholars from both movements tend towars liberal interpretations.
Traditional reading, as far as I can determine, holds “the disciple whom Jesus loved” to be a bit of modesty on John’s part: he refuses to name himself, but uses this euphemistically.
Further, I’ve pointed out in the past that this may very well betoken a special relationship, but need not be seen as a sexual/romantic relationship. John was most likely the youngest of the Twelve, in his mid to late teens when Jesus called James and him. The picture drawn is, on John’s side, one of hero worship: a lifelong amazement that his Master had singled him out. And on Jesus’s side: He was, by the orthodox Chalcedonian doctrine, truly God and truly man. In reaction against a modern tendency to see Jesus as exclusively human, many Christians tend to discount His very real humanity. As a human being, he needed a sense of intimacy, someone to feel close to. As an itinerant teacher, he could not marry (Holy Blood, Holy Bullshit and Dan Brown to the contrary), and His close relationships would have to be with His disciples. It’s not at all impossible to see a purely Platonic but deep personal love between Jesus and John, a mentor/father-figure and disciple/son-figure relationship that doesn’t match a lot of modern concepts but is fairly common throughout history.
This passage, written before the entire NT, is saying (I’m paraphrasing) “Don’t add anything to God’s word and commands.” If you believe that the NT is God’s word, then it’s fine to add that to the OT. (Obviously, if you don’t think the NT is God’s word, then you’re right that this passage says not to add it on.)
And the people that added the NT to the OT aren’t lecturing you on anything. I doubt they’re lecturing anyone on anything, since they’ve been dead for centuries. In fact, I don’t think anyone’s lecturing you at all.
Once again, the passage says not to add to “His words.” If you believe the NT is “His words,” then that passage doesn’t prohibit adding it on.
Are you arguing that this passage only applies to Revelations (like Diogenes)? If so, I’m not sure how to respond except to say that I don’t see any reason why that would necessarily be true. In other words, cite please?
What’s utterly incoherent? The Protestant Reformation? The idea that people can make up their own minds about what God desires in their lives? Something else?
First of all, whether the idea is new doesn’t effect whether it’s a good idea or not. The idea that sickness was caused by demons is hundreds (if not thousands) of years older than the idea of viruses and germs. And yet, I think the latter may be a better idea.
Second, I’m not sure why you think it’s obvious that scriptures can only be understood in light of the traditions and teachings passed down. From where do the teachings come except the Bible? And why would man-made traditions be more influential than the Bible, which is supposed to at least describe the things God said and did?
And how old does something have to be before it can conflict with the Bible? Do Aquinas’s meditations take precedence if they conflict with the Bible?
Heresy? That’s a strong word. Do you have anything to back it up?
You know what else was good enough for the early church? Slavery. And animal sacrifice. And stoning heretics. Once again, just because something is older doesn’t make it better.
One reason that people think the old practices of the church are no longer necessary is the same reason that people think they no longer need animal sacrifice or to stone heretics. As I said before, (many people believe that) the NT described a New Covenant between man and God.
Do you have a cite for the idea that the Bible “wasn’t meant to be the be-all and end-all of things, just what was considered to be the finest and most reliable and important documents”? I understand that this is a theory advanced by a lot of people, but if you’ve got a cite to support it, I’d love to see it.
(I didn’t mean for this to turn into a debate on whether the Protestant Reformation was a good idea. I apologize for continuing the hijack.)
Talk about begging the question. You’re basically saying that anyone can add anything as long as they say it’s “God’s word.”
Are you arguing that this passage only applies to Revelations (like Diogenes)? If so, I’m not sure how to respond except to say that I don’t see any reason why that would necessarily be true.
[/quote]
You have your burden of proof backwards. Revelation was written as a single book. It says not to alter “THIS BOOK.” There is no other book it can refer to except for itself. There was no New Testament yet. The author had no reason to believe that anyone was going to add HIS book to their own personal Canon. The Bible is not “a” book, it’s a compilation of MANY books. None of the books of the NT refer to themselves as being part of a larger “Bible.” If you want to claim that the author of Revelation had some kind of supernatural knowledge of futire Canon and that “this book” is the Christian Bible, then you are the one who needs to pony up the cites. Good luck to you with that.
Cite please? I’m sure that may have been problems with translations, but just saying “Every time it refers to homosexuality is a mistranslation” seems kind of spurious to me. What does it actually refer to?
True, he doesn’t say marriage (or anything else) has to be between a man and a woman. But the passage, which I quoted, isn’t just about marriage. It’s about how God created men and women for each other, and how it’s been that way “from the beginning of creation.” And He commands that men and women “shall become one flesh.” Jesus could have said that God created “people” for each other, or He could have talked about the importance of love, or He could have done any number of other things. But Jesus chose to talk about how men and women were made for each other and put together by God. He’s not so much condemning homosexuality as endorsing only heterosexuality.
I’d love to believe your first contention. Cite please?
I don’t disagree with your second contention, but I know that others do. It seems that you recognize this fact. I was just pointing out the justifications that people have for their opposition to homosexual acts.
No, I’m saying that the passage didn’t prohibit the New Testament, which you and Tripwire said it did.
As for your point, I’m not saying that anyone can add anything as long as they say it’s “God’s word.” However, it does follow that people will disagee with what constitutes “God’s word,” and I don’t think my interpretation (or yours) will necessarily be any more authoritative than anyone else’s. If some people think Aquinas’s meditations deserve to be included in the Bible as God’s word, then they can certainly make that argument. Obviously, LDS members believe there are other testaments that should be added to the NT, and they have done so.
But the fact that people disagree about what is God’s word doesn’t make your interpretation of that passage any more accurate.
Really? Did I make the assertion that it only applies to Revelations? I thought that was someone else.
So all I need to do is prove God exists, that he was speaking through Revelation’s author(s), that the author(s) knew God was speaking through them, and that one of the things God said was that Revelations would be included in the Bible? Awesome. So I guess we can give up any pretense of trying to argue honestly.
Look, I know you don’t believe in God. But this discussion was originally about how Christians justify certain things. Well, they justify them based on what the Bible says, which they believe is the divine word of God. If you’re now going to ask them to prove the existence of God, well, then I think I’ll pass on tryin to meet your burden of proof.
Actually, yes it does. It said not to add anything. Christians added things.
How do you ecide what’s God’s word and what isn’t? What criteria do you have other than your own personal opinion?
That is the default presumption. It does not need to be proven. You are the one that has to prove the author intended that verse to apply to anything other than the specific book he was writing.
All I’m asking for is your evidence that when the author said “this book,” he meant anything other than the book he was writing.
I’m not asking you to prove the existence of God, I was just pointing out a factual flaw in one of your assertions. The author of Revelation was only talking about Revelation. Pointing out a factual error has nothing to do with religious faith.
Jesus doesn’t say anything about pre-marital sex being “sinful.” He condemns adultery and divorce (divorce within a specific cultural context), but that’s all. There is actually nothing in the Bible that says a guy can’t have sex before marriage. It doesn’t even say they have to be monogomous after marriage.
But did not Christ himself, together with the gospel writers, St Paul, and the other authors of the New Testament, break these instructions by adding to the Jewish Bible?
special relationship?