Umm, about the “Holy of Holies”, isn’t is currently desanctified, as that is why sacrifices can be done there, thus anyone could ‘walk’ there until it was resanctified? **
[/QUOTE]
nope.
sacrifices can’t be done for two reasons–the priests aren’t in a state of ritual purity, and because there’s nowhere to do them. no temple. actually, no sacrifices ever happened in the holy of holies. there were incense offerings, however, which were done on a small rock called the even hashtiya. animal sacrifices took place in the courtyard outside the temple–only priests were even allowed into the sanctuary portion of the temple. besides, the animal sacrifices were really bloody and disgusting.
still, observant jews hold that the rule keeping them out of the temple (and out of the area over the temple sanctuary and holy of holies) still holds. it’s not so much an issue of the area being made sacred by man as it is an issue of the area being declared sacred by god. even if humans do muck it up a lot, that’s still god’s area.
i know, i know, i should read all the way down so i can reply to everthing all at once…
jews are still obligated to do the sacrifices, but are unable. there’s no temple, and no priest in a state of ritual purity. i mentioned above that there were some evangelical christians pushing for the rebuilding of the temple in order to force the second coming (which still seems like cheating to me). in the same vein, there is a cattle breeder in mississippi who wants to provide the red heifers to purify the high priest, and all the other priests, to get the whole show back in business.
you see, the only way that the high priest and the other priests can be purified is by some application of the ashes of the red heifer, which is a heifer, completely red in color (bet you didn’t see that one coming). not even two hairs can be white, which i guess means that one is okay. the heifer has to be raised and slaughtered in a kosher way, and a sacrifice has to be made. then the heifer is burned completely, and the ashes are applied however one applies them.
so there’s a cattle rancher by the name of clyde lott who wants to raise and donate red heifers to this cause (the new yorker has an excellant article on this in the july 98 issue). his reasoning is that once the priests are purified, they can build the temple (they have to be the ones to build it) and wait for the coming of the messiah (first or second, depending on who you ask…)
prohibited because everyone always assumed that a witch got his/her power from Satan … and working with the devil is usually frowned upon.
Oh… just found this:
<b>Galatians 5
[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye
cannot do the things that ye would.
[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past,
that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.</b>
So, basically, since it’s in the NT, Christians believe it.
what Jesus teaches is the fulfillment of the previous laws, specifically the Ten Commandments. As he largely ignored the other laws, his followers do likewise.
!) Love God above all else.
Fine the way it is.
2) No graven images. Do not bow down to them or serve them
You can not serve both God and mammon – not merely graven images.
3) Do not take the Lord name in vain.
Do not take oaths or vow of any kind, whether in vain or not.
4) Keep the Sabbath.
The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
5) Honor thy father and mother.
Your family are only those who keep the teachings of Jesus. Honor this family.
6) Thou shalt not kill.
Do not even hate.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Do not even lust.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
It is not merely enough not to take from those who have. You must also sell all that you have, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus. The rich shall not see heaven.
9) Do not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Do not bear witness at all. If your brother sins, take him aside and council him in private, and if he does not believe you, bring others with you that he might straighten his ways.
9) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s property.
No longer really applies – although see #8. Whatever you ask for in the name of the father shall be given to you. [Although, I have never seen a Jew keep this one either, as how can you even barter for (or buy) anything unless it is for something you want? Or can you only barter for (or buy) things you do not want, which does not make much sense.]
10)Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
Again, unchanged.
Does this help, Zev? As a Jew, any thoughts on #9?
the orthodox church does keep a bit of the old testament. for example:
keeping the sabbath. this did move to sunday vs saturday, however the not working rule is held to. my mother will “flip out” if i pick up a pair of scissors on sunday. there are things that are not done on sundays or holy days unless there is a life and death situation.
days are from sundown to sundown, except in areas of unusual sun ie alaska, siberia; there they hold to a 6pm to 6pm rule.
there are male\female rules that have carried over. some of them are up to the descretion of the priest or parrish. there is a woman’s side and a man’s side to an orthodox church. not may churches still hold to it but some do. there are also rules regarding menstuating women that some churches may hold to. married women are to have their heads covered if they are not in thier own homes. men and women are to dress in a modest manner. some churches will refuse entrance to a woman wearing pants. don’t even think about a mini skirt.
there is a naming ceremony on the 8th day of a child’s life.
the altar area is surrounded by an iconostas. only men are allowed behind it. only an ordained man may touch the altar or go through the “royal doors.” the censor and robes of the bishop’s have bells on them. many of the rules for the clergy and the altar area are clearly taken from the old testament rules.
i’m sure there are more, if i remember them i’ll add them.
Correct It is rather amusing to read everyone fixated on the law, particularly Christians. The line above attributed to Jesus was only delivered following persistent queries regarding what laws were still relevant. The Pharisee scholars who were the experts on the torah, taxed the patience of Jesus no end, and he loved to tease them by speaking in parables in their presence. Such a simple rule would make their vocation irrelevant. Follow your conscience folks, treat others like you would like to be treated, and that pretty well eliminates the nasties. Thats my take on it.
Thou shalt not steal.
It is not merely enough not to take from those who have. You must also sell all that you have, give the proceeds to the poor, and follow Jesus. The rich shall not see heaven.
Jesus did not say the rich shall not see heaven. He said it would be harder for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. That simply means that rich people tend to love the things of this world greater than they love God. The eye of a needle is a reference to a small opening in a city wall used in times of a siege that a camel would have to get on its knees to walk through.
> The eye of a needle is a reference to a small opening in
> a city wall used in times of a siege that a camel would
> have to get on its knees to walk through.
No, not true. This issue is addressed in a Mailbag Answer:
The “opening in the city wall” theory seems to be just an attempt to get around the plain meaining of the saying.
I think wevets and others hit the point. Many of the Jewish laws at the time of Christ were intended for the Jews, then an ethnic group and also God’s chosen people, to whom He made a covenant, a promise. Part of Christ’s mission was to open up salvation to gentiles as well. This meant a New Covenant, with new guidlines for the aforementioned salvation. Suddenly, anyone could become one of God’s people too, by following Christ’s words. In this light, Jesus was sort of a populist.
As for “Christian thinking”, there’s really no such thing. Unlike many religions, Christianity is divided into a multitude of sects, some only differring by interptretation of single Bible verses. Disagree with your pastor? Start a new denomination. In the small city in West Viriginia where I grew up, there are many, many churches, most proclaiming a different denomination than the others on its (usually) florescent marquee. I think this is a Southern phenomona, all these different denoms. Ironically, as Jodi pointed out, Jesus repeatedly addressed adherance to the spirit of the law, rather than its letter.
FWIW, I was brought up in the Roman Catholic faith and taught the Ten Commandments. We were taught the Christ sacrificed Himself, alleviating the need for further (e.g. animal) sacrifices. I think most, if not all, major Christian sects teach the TC as part of basic morality. We were taught to be very respectful of Judaism, and spent plenty of time in our town’s temple, learning about Jewish ritual and the differences in our beliefs.
BTW, even though I’m not a Christian anymore, I think we could use a little more respect for others’ religions and faiths in this thread, and in others dealling with religion. I know many Straight Dopers are athiests and agnostics, but I don’t think anyone wants o hear about a special effects God who “will blow [people] up or catch [them on] fire or have the wrath of god fall upon them or something.” C’mon, let’s be nice.
Leaving aside jmullaney’s peculiar approach to exigesis (dealt with in numerous threads throuoghout the SDMB), I will point out that Jesus meant the eye of a sewing needle.
But is “love God with all your heart…” and “do unto others…” really enough to govern our relationship between one person and others? That leaves so much grey area that I could drive the moon through it.
A few examples:
Euthanasia. Do unto others? Does that mean that if the doctor himself wouldn’t mind being euthenized (if, for example, in a persistent vegitative state) then he can do it to someone in that state, but for another doctor who wouldn’t want it done to him it is forbidden?
Usury. What is “usury?” 5%? 10%? 15%? 20%? Does someone who doesn’t mind paying 20% on his credit cards get to charge others that amount (“do unto others…”) while others who don’t want to pay that amount can’t? Even if there is some universal standard, what is it?
Abortion. Same argument as for euthanasia, above.
Stealing. Can I borrow something of my neighbors without asking him? I probably wouldn’t mind if he borrowed my lawn mower (as long as he returned it promptly and in good condition, etc.) without asking me. Does that mean I have the right to do the same (“do unto others…”)?
Incest. Of course, this is not for everyone. But if two consenting adults wish to do this… (“do unto others…”) You wouldn’t want someone else telling you who you can and cannot marry, correct?
Cursing someone If I don’t mind getting cursed, can I curse other people (“do unto others…”)?
I think I’ve made the point clear. If you simple allow everyone to “Follow your conscience folks, treat others like you would like to be treated,” that leaves no absolute standards at all. Is that the case grienspace? Are there no absolute standards? Are all the above issues left to each individual for themselves to decide what is right and what is wrong? And if so, then why the ban on murder, suicide, adultery, etc.?
One gains the first concept of separating religion and state, when God gave Israel their first king, to replace the leadership of the priests.
In the New Testament, Christians are instructed to be good citizens and obey the law of civil authority, because that law comes from God. Nowhere are Christians exhorted to participate in formulating the civil law. But as for personal conduct, within that context He gives us a guide, the Golden Rule.
Now to me, that suggests for example that Roe vs Wade stands and Christians ought to respect that law. On the other hand, my personal conscience would suggest that I wouldn’t want to be aborted,and I hope that I would feel the same way if I was a woman. I could conceive however, that I might be in such desparate circumstances that I would opt for an abortion, applying my Golden Rule in consideration of what kind of life could I offer the child. To clarify, I oppose abortion but I am for free choice.
The civil law is for all of us, and is provided by God. The golden rule applys to any one who cares to live a good and healthy life. It has nothing to do with salvation.
Well, actually civil authority was never in the hands of the kohanim (priests). It was in the hands of the Judges before Saul was appointed.
And even when Saul (and later David) were appointed, they were still bound to uphold the Torah. There was no seperation of civil and religious law.
So, then, to clarify, are you saying that if it’s OK with the civil law and the Christian’s own conscience then it’s OK with Christianity?
So, since 24% interest rates are legal in the US, that’s not usury?
If two relatives live in a place where incest is legal, if it’s OK with them then it’s OK with God?
I know quite a few Christian denominations who would argue with your position on the permissability of abortion, whether or not the woman’s conscience feels it’s OK or not.
I have read (no cite, sorry) that observant Jews believe that, in addition to the laws God made explicitly for His “chosen people”, because He is God for the entire world He also set down moral standards for non-Jews to follow.
Assuming I’ve got this right, I was wondering, within Jewish tradition, what these standards are, and how similar and different they are from what is actually followed in various non-Jewish societies, both secular and within other religious faiths.
There are seven laws that Orthodox Jews believe non-Jews are obligated to keep. In broad, general terms, they are:
Prohibitions:
Idolatry
Murder
Forbidden sexual relations
Eating the flesh of a living animal
Blasphemy (cursing God)
Theivery/Stealing
In addition there is one positive commandment (but it’s a biggie…)
To set up courts and civil laws and live by them.
Most people tend to live within these guidelines anyway. Of course, Judaism does not hold a person culpable for punishment if they never heard of the commandment, so, the vast majority of Budhists, for example, are not in violation of item #1.
Thanks for the correction. I wasn’t comfortable using the term priests and now I remember why
No argument. I was presenting a perspective analogous to the role of the Magna Carta in parliamentary democracy, in terms of the first hint of God’s intention to treat secular institutions separately from the objective of those who wish to live according to God’s will.
With regard to your first question I have no idea how to speak for Christianity. From day one, there have been divisions within Christianity about God’s will and very little attention to Christ’s own words wrt the golden rule which we pay a lot of lip service to.
Of course I think 24% is usury, but then I’m not a banker.
With regard to the question of incest, it is at this point I wish I could come up with a parable but I can’t. You would be hard pressed to come up with a present day society that does condone incest, but if I remember correctly all Jews and many other ethnic groups were descended from the incestuous relationship between Sarah and Abraham. I’ll bet many people didn’t know that. Of course I wouldn’t promote incest, but am I going to say, “God, you got it wrong”
Of course many Christians would argue with me on state sanctioned abortion. I merely have no position on it and fortunately feel obligated not to take a stand on it.However I believe that I do not have a choice.
Thanks for your reply. The point I was trying to get at is this:
If the civil law says it’s OK, and the individual Christian thinks (as per his/her conscience, following “do unto others…”) that the particular act is OK, then is it OK according to Christianity?
If you say no, then you can’t simply live by “do unto others…” What is acceptable under “do unto others” must be better defined.
If you say yes, then explain why many Christian denominations are against such things as abortion, homosexuality,active euthenasia, etc.
If I’m sounding like a pain, I don’t mean to be. It may be as Jodi pointed out earlier in this thread. Christians may be able to say “Keep the Sabbath…” and leave it at that, but Jews will need answers to the questions of “When is the Sabbath, what can be done, and to what degree is doing any of those acts considered a desecration?”
By the why, you are not a pain in the ass at all. I went back to your original post to review exactly what you originally were looking for, and I realize that maybe I am not the person to ask. You’ve asked challenging perhaps even rhetorical questions that I as a Christian could ask as well of Christianity in general. I think that you are suggesting Christianity selectively promotes laws and discard what they don’t like, and if thats the case, in my humble opinion you are right. I’m stepping in here in defense of the word of Christ and his will.