Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Matthew 5:17-5:20

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2010 11:08:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Why therefore do Christians not follow the Judaic laws?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2010 11:50:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Good question!
Here are some of my ideas:

Galatians 3 (chapter summary)
Mosaic law added because of transgressions—The law was a schoolmaster to bring Israel to Christ
http://scriptures.lds.org...

Basically the lower law was given because the Israelites were not able (or willing) to keep the higher law...it was a preparatory law to keep them mindful of the path of their duty. Pretty much God was ready to destroy them, but Moses intervened because he loved them...(symbolic of Jesus Christ btw.)...God wanted to destroy them and raise up seed from Moses, but anyway God decided to honor Moses's request to save them and for His own glory He honored the Abrahamic Covenant which He had made.

Matthew 5 (Sermon on the Mount) is the higher law (controlling thoughts, not only actions)
The lesser law was fulfilled and transcended. Ex: not only don't kill, but don't be angry. Also not only don't commit adultery, don't even look upon women to lust after them. But the lower law is still in effect though...for example we still aren't supposed to murder, it is just that more is required. (Be ye therefore perfect...)

Certain parts have been fulfilled...for example the sacrifice of Jesus Christ BEING the REASON why the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were performed...all symbolically pointing to His sacrifice. Turning thoughts to Him. But once He arrived and performed the sacrifice, that is what is to be looked to.
[there is more to animal sacrifice however, but for now I will let that statement suffice, as it is not currently practiced now anymore among believers.]
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2010 11:51:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
CN,

The Pharisees did more than uphold the laws. They enforced the laws to show their righteousness. Enforcing the laws became more important the spirit of the laws. Instead of following the laws as God's commandments, the laws became the end in themselves instead of a means to obey God. In Mt 23:4, Jesus says, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

In addition, the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus and a scenario occurred in a synagogue on the Sabbath. Healing was not to be done on the Sabbath, yet a man with a shriveled hand was in need. Jesus healed him and asked, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to kill." Mark 3:1-4. The stoning event is another famous example.

When Jesus was speaking the Pharisees were there to hear him; they always were there to trip him up. How does one claim to be a benevolent God, yet support the cruelty of the laws? He explained in the Sermon on the Mount that he wanted to clarify the laws. He showed how the law enforcers were taking the easy path. They felt following easy laws made them righteous in God's eyes. Jesus explained that righteousness was much more difficult. In reference to murder he said, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘do not murder' and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." Mt 521,22.

Furthermore, when confronted by the Pharisees as to why his disciples broke traditions, Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" … "You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." Mt15; 3, 7-8.

The laws were more important than honoring God, and Jesus brought this to light. Christians do not follow the traditions as they create barriers between man and God. We still see this happen today when people worship what they are told is the Word of God, and worship rules presented by men, instead of God himself. Now, interpretations of the Bible, whether true or not, take precedent for some Christians over the overarching principles Jesus clarified. We still have Pharisees today, only under different names.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 3:37:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 11:08:58 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Why therefore do Christians not follow the Judaic laws?

Sometimes you just have to KEEP reading! We are under something infinitely better and HARDER than the Judaic law:

Murder
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.[d]

Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'[f] 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
The Cross.. the Cross.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:46:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 11:51:49 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
CN,

The Pharisees did more than uphold the laws. They enforced the laws to show their righteousness. Enforcing the laws became more important the spirit of the laws. Instead of following the laws as God's commandments, the laws became the end in themselves instead of a means to obey God. In Mt 23:4, Jesus says, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

In addition, the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus and a scenario occurred in a synagogue on the Sabbath. Healing was not to be done on the Sabbath, yet a man with a shriveled hand was in need. Jesus healed him and asked, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to kill." Mark 3:1-4. The stoning event is another famous example.

When Jesus was speaking the Pharisees were there to hear him; they always were there to trip him up. How does one claim to be a benevolent God, yet support the cruelty of the laws? He explained in the Sermon on the Mount that he wanted to clarify the laws. He showed how the law enforcers were taking the easy path. They felt following easy laws made them righteous in God's eyes. Jesus explained that righteousness was much more difficult. In reference to murder he said, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘do not murder' and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." Mt 521,22.

Furthermore, when confronted by the Pharisees as to why his disciples broke traditions, Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" … "You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." Mt15; 3, 7-8.

The laws were more important than honoring God, and Jesus brought this to light. Christians do not follow the traditions as they create barriers between man and God. We still see this happen today when people worship what they are told is the Word of God, and worship rules presented by men, instead of God himself. Now, interpretations of the Bible, whether true or not, take precedent for some Christians over the overarching principles Jesus clarified. We still have Pharisees today, only under different names.

Although i agree to most of what you said, the implication of the verse suggests that although the laws are not the most important thing in honoring God and entering heaven, they are still important enough if you truly want to be called Great in the kingdom of heaven and if you want to strive to be the closest you can to God and Jesus. I find no reason why Christians today should not follow the laws.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 6:50:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 11:50:39 AM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Good question!
Here are some of my ideas:

Galatians 3 (chapter summary)
Mosaic law added because of transgressions—The law was a schoolmaster to bring Israel to Christ
http://scriptures.lds.org...

Basically the lower law was given because the Israelites were not able (or willing) to keep the higher law...it was a preparatory law to keep them mindful of the path of their duty. Pretty much God was ready to destroy them, but Moses intervened because he loved them...(symbolic of Jesus Christ btw.)...God wanted to destroy them and raise up seed from Moses, but anyway God decided to honor Moses's request to save them and for His own glory He honored the Abrahamic Covenant which He had made.

Matthew 5 (Sermon on the Mount) is the higher law (controlling thoughts, not only actions)
The lesser law was fulfilled and transcended. Ex: not only don't kill, but don't be angry. Also not only don't commit adultery, don't even look upon women to lust after them. But the lower law is still in effect though...for example we still aren't supposed to murder, it is just that more is required. (Be ye therefore perfect...)

Certain parts have been fulfilled...for example the sacrifice of Jesus Christ BEING the REASON why the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were performed...all symbolically pointing to His sacrifice. Turning thoughts to Him. But once He arrived and performed the sacrifice, that is what is to be looked to.
[there is more to animal sacrifice however, but for now I will let that statement suffice, as it is not currently practiced now anymore among believers.]

But wouldnt this mean that Jesus would be against Trials, and the laws of countries, and death penalties, and prisons of modern society?

I mean, first off, if God can knowingly order Immoral laws, then how do we know if anything that comes from his mouth is moral or immoral?

Furthermore, if the lower laws are still in effect, then why arent you advocating for the levitical lower laws, such as stoning an unruly child?
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2010 9:41:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 6:50:22 AM, tkubok wrote:
But wouldnt this mean that Jesus would be against Trials, and the laws of countries, and death penalties, and prisons of modern society?

I'm not sure what I said that would make you think He would be against those things...I believe He is ok with all of those things.

I mean, first off, if God can knowingly order Immoral laws, then how do we know if anything that comes from his mouth is moral or immoral?

Why do you think that the lower laws He gave were immoral? Don't you think that God has a higher purpose(s) that He can weigh things against that we are not privy to understanding?

Furthermore, if the lower laws are still in effect, then why arent you advocating for the levitical lower laws, such as stoning an unruly child?

I don't think all of the lower laws are still in effect...many/most have been fulfilled.

But there are some still in effect in the sense that they have been "transcended". For example: if you are not going to look at a woman to lust after her (if you are a married man), then you will automatically not commit adultery...
(the 7th commandment is still in effect but that is not going to be an issue if a person is keeping the higher law)

If a person can live by the spirit of the laws then they don't need every single thing to do spelled out for them in black and white. But I think that at certain times in the past it was needed to be spelled out.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:07:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 11:51:49 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
CN,

The Pharisees did more than uphold the laws. They enforced the laws to show their righteousness. Enforcing the laws became more important the spirit of the laws. Instead of following the laws as God's commandments, the laws became the end in themselves instead of a means to obey God. In Mt 23:4, Jesus says, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

In addition, the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus and a scenario occurred in a synagogue on the Sabbath. Healing was not to be done on the Sabbath, yet a man with a shriveled hand was in need. Jesus healed him and asked, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to kill." Mark 3:1-4. The stoning event is another famous example.

When Jesus was speaking the Pharisees were there to hear him; they always were there to trip him up. How does one claim to be a benevolent God, yet support the cruelty of the laws? He explained in the Sermon on the Mount that he wanted to clarify the laws. He showed how the law enforcers were taking the easy path. They felt following easy laws made them righteous in God's eyes. Jesus explained that righteousness was much more difficult. In reference to murder he said, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘do not murder' and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." Mt 521,22.

Furthermore, when confronted by the Pharisees as to why his disciples broke traditions, Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?" … "You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." Mt15; 3, 7-8.

The laws were more important than honoring God, and Jesus brought this to light. Christians do not follow the traditions as they create barriers between man and God. We still see this happen today when people worship what they are told is the Word of God, and worship rules presented by men, instead of God himself. Now, interpretations of the Bible, whether true or not, take precedent for some Christians over the overarching principles Jesus clarified. We still have Pharisees today, only under different names.

Mmm.. I'm impressed, do you confess Christ as Saviour?
The Cross.. the Cross.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2010 3:07:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/10/2010 9:41:06 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I'm not sure what I said that would make you think He would be against those things...I believe He is ok with all of those things.
Well, are the levitical laws that Moses lay down, still valid or not, and if they are not, why arent they?

Why do you think that the lower laws He gave were immoral? Don't you think that God has a higher purpose(s) that He can weigh things against that we are not privy to understanding?

If the lower laws are moral and just, why are they not incorporated in todays laws? Do you believe that Stoning a child just becuase he refuses to obey his parents, is lawful and moral and just? Or that a woman who is betrothed, and is raped, should be stoned to death just because she didnt shout for help?

I don't think all of the lower laws are still in effect...many/most have been fulfilled.

But not all, right?
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 7:16:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/13/2010 3:07:05 PM, tkubok wrote:
Well, are the levitical laws that Moses lay down, still valid or not, and if they are not, why arent they?

I thought Galatians 3 explained it pretty well, but here is some more on that subject:

The Law of Moses revolved around the Levitical, or Aaronic Priesthood. Some of the practices were symbolic of the mission and life of the Messiah, (ex: sacrifices = God sacrificing his son). Jesus was a fulfillment of the law, so the similitudinous rituals were no longer necessary. Sacrifices were replaced by the Sacrament.

"And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new. Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end."
3 Nephi 15:3-5 (Book of Mormon)

Also the Levitical (or Aaronic) Priesthood is the lower Priesthood. The greater Priesthood is known as the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-12, "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

If the lower laws are moral and just, why are they not incorporated in todays laws? Do you believe that Stoning a child just becuase he refuses to obey his parents, is lawful and moral and just? Or that a woman who is betrothed, and is raped, should be stoned to death just because she didnt shout for help?

The Mosaic law taught a lot of concepts by symbolism...for example I am sure you understand that the sacrifices of the animals (and the 'scapegoat') were symbolic of the sacrifice of the Savior Jesus Christ...which enables man to have a claim on mercy rather than being subject to the laws of justice. The law of justice was presented in the law of Moses in its hardness and exactness...So I would ask what the symbolism of a child rebelling against their parents and disobeying them represents?...Would that not represent a person rebelling DIRECTLY against God? I think that is what the symbolism can be interpreted as....so what is the penalty of direct rebellion against God? would it not be death?...as far as the actual practice of children being stoned by their parents...from what I understand it was rarely done and this is why --> because the parent themself must be the person to throw the first stone...and parents always have a strong love for their children, so I doubt that it happened much. But it would probably put a healthy respect in the children's minds knowing that according to the law what could be done to them...They didn't seem to have a problem with gangs back then, maybe it was good for their society overall?...Do you not agree that a lot of problems in today's society stem from too much 'permissiveness'?

But not all, right?
What I meant by that is that ones that aren't ...are the ones that have been 'transcended' (like the not murdering/ not being angry example)...I don't think there are any that are still practiced/ required....for example things like circumcision are optional today, and are not a token of the covenant like in earlier times.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 7:47:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 7:16:35 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:

I thought Galatians 3 explained it pretty well, but here is some more on that subject:

The Law of Moses revolved around the Levitical, or Aaronic Priesthood. Some of the practices were symbolic of the mission and life of the Messiah, (ex: sacrifices = God sacrificing his son). Jesus was a fulfillment of the law, so the similitudinous rituals were no longer necessary. Sacrifices were replaced by the Sacrament.

"And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new. Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end."
3 Nephi 15:3-5 (Book of Mormon)

Also the Levitical (or Aaronic) Priesthood is the lower Priesthood. The greater Priesthood is known as the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Hebrews 7:11-12, "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."
In traditional Chrisitanity, however, it was the sacrifical laws that were fullfilled, not the moral laws. I mean, do you believe that the 10 commandments are no longer valid?

The Mosaic law taught a lot of concepts by symbolism...for example I am sure you understand that the sacrifices of the animals (and the 'scapegoat') were symbolic of the sacrifice of the Savior Jesus Christ...which enables man to have a claim on mercy rather than being subject to the laws of justice. The law of justice was presented in the law of Moses in its hardness and exactness...So I would ask what the symbolism of a child rebelling against their parents and disobeying them represents?...Would that not represent a person rebelling DIRECTLY against God? I think that is what the symbolism can be interpreted as....so what is the penalty of direct rebellion against God? would it not be death?...as far as the actual practice of children being stoned by their parents...from what I understand it was rarely done and this is why --> because the parent themself must be the person to throw the first stone...and parents always have a strong love for their children, so I doubt that it happened much. But it would probably put a healthy respect in the children's minds knowing that according to the law what could be done to them...They didn't seem to have a problem with gangs back then, maybe it was good for their society overall?...Do you not agree that a lot of problems in today's society stem from too much 'permissiveness'?

Permissiveness? Yes. but i dont believe the solution lies in stoning them to death.

First of all, even in todays society, for example, Shariah Law, Stoning is fairly prevalent. And, although the west is outraged at this, these parents seem to have little problem stoning their children.

Secondly, sure, stoning a child could be seen as a symbology for rebelling against God. However, in regards to sacrificing animals, whether or not it was a symbollism has nothing to do with the fact that the actual act was done, to the letter. And so was Stoning children. How does this being symbology, change the fact that this was actually done to the letter, and was enacted as law, and was obviously immoral?

Thirdly, sure, it might have been good for the society, overall, just like how slavery is really good for the society, overall. Doesnt make it moral, and doesnt make it right.

Fourthly, however, i feel as though you didnt really answer my question. I asked whether this was moral and righteous and just. Well, is it? Its a simple yes or no question.

What I meant by that is that ones that aren't ...are the ones that have been 'transcended' (like the not murdering/ not being angry example)...I don't think there are any that are still practiced/ required....for example things like circumcision are optional today, and are not a token of the covenant like in earlier times.

So youre against wars and murdering in self defence?
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2010 12:53:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/9/2010 11:08:58 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Why therefore do Christians not follow the Judaic laws?

There are only Ten that were not community specific. the ten commandments. This is what people would have thought of when they read Law capitalized like that. The rest may have lined up with those Ten when they were given, but that is not so now.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2010 6:10:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
SIMPLY PUT: The perfect Law came to imperfect man (Moses) and was then added to with many traditions etc..
The perfect Man (Jesus Christ) enters human history and 'fulfills the Law' (does not sin) and forgave even those who gave Him vinegar to drink as He died.
Thus He exchanges our sin for His Grace, our 'efforts' for His perfection, our sinful nature for His Spirit of Truth..
The Cross.. the Cross.
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 9:16:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 7:47:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
Permissiveness? Yes. but i dont believe the solution lies in stoning them to death.
I refer to this idea a bit later (when I talk about an immoral community stealing and pillaging.)...similar concept/ idea I think...

First of all, even in todays society, for example, Shariah Law, Stoning is fairly prevalent. And, although the west is outraged at this, these parents seem to have little problem stoning their children.

Is it really 'common'? (I searched a tiny bit online, but couldn't find any solid statistics)...If so, for what offenses? (if they have murdered people or something?)...
***also remember that Shariah Law is not the same as the Mosaic law...
(There have been many religious wars between Islam and Christianity.)
That parents have 'little problem' with stoning their own children is a difficult idea for me to accept...maybe it happens, but I would think it certainly would be seen as a problem to them and that they would be reluctant to do it, and wouldn't do it if they didn't see it as absolutely necessary. Some societies value the community's rights more than the individual's rights.

Secondly, sure, stoning a child could be seen as a symbology for rebelling against God. However, in regards to sacrificing animals, whether or not it was a symbollism has nothing to do with the fact that the actual act was done, to the letter. And so was Stoning children. How does this being symbology, change the fact that this was actually done to the letter, and was enacted as law, and was obviously immoral?

I will address your statement "and was obviously immoral?". Was it? by what standard?

Thirdly, sure, it might have been good for the society, overall, just like how slavery is really good for the society, overall. Doesnt make it moral, and doesnt make it right.

I would question whether slavery really is good for the society overall...
But I would say that keeping people from idolatry and keeping people from murdering others and from stealing I think are good for the society overall...so do you think that makes those laws 'moral' and 'right'? What is the criteria for something being 'morally good' or 'right'?

Fourthly, however, i feel as though you didnt really answer my question. I asked whether this was moral and righteous and just. Well, is it? Its a simple yes or no question.

Yes...
I think it is just. I think in our society we are not accustomed to raw, untempered JUSTICE...an eye for an eye...is that just? well I guess yes, it is!
I think that it may be that we are just so used to being given mercy or at least a measure of mercy that when justice comes down straight it is seen by some as being wrong.

Here are some of my ideas on that too:
Say someone is caught stealing...IF carried out to the logical ends...stealing a persons food = the innocent person could have starved to death (in primitive societies)...therefore in summary STEALING = close to murder (or can be the direct cause of leading to a person's death)

It is about how far you want to carry it...So say there is a whole tribe of people who are immoral and pillage and teach others to do that as well...say they descend upon a peaceful village and take all the food....So why should the innocent moral people be the ones to die?
...Could not God know that about that group of pillagers and take His army (whoever He may choose to do the job) and eliminate the pillagers?...and if He did, could it not be said that it was simply favoring the just over the unjust and have God be justified?

NOW what if the practices of a particular group of people is causing people to die SPIRITUALLY? (Which is more harmful because it deals with ETERNAL consequences)...Will not God be justified in stopping people by whatever means were needed?...

In the book of Mormon there is a very interesting story about a man named Laban...He has the brass plates (which contain the teachings which lead to salvation)...He refuses to give them up to Nephi and his brothers...they offer him much treasure and gold for them but he doesn't give them up, and he steals their gold and seeks to kill them...anyway...later on God commands Nephi to kill Laban and obtain the plates. So is God justified in this thing? Here is the scripture that pertains to this event:
1 Nephi 4:13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

and here was Nephi's reasoning:
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

So youre against wars and murdering in self defence?

I am ok with killing in self defense (not really the same as 'murder'), and I'm ok with 'just' wars.

anyway I have more ideas on the subject, but that's probably enough for now...you bring up good questions and you have good insights on this...I think it is an interesting topic...
heart_of_the_matter
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2010 10:15:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/1/2010 7:47:59 AM, tkubok wrote:
In traditional Chrisitanity, however, it was the sacrifical laws that were fullfilled, not the moral laws. I mean, do you believe that the 10 commandments are no longer valid?

I noticed I had not answered this part of your question...

I believe that the 10 Commandments are still in effect. Also yes the sacrificial laws have been fulfilled (for a time).

As far as the moral laws:

I believe that there are lower laws and that there are higher laws.
D&C 88:
36 All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
http://scriptures.lds.org...

Here is an example I like to use:
Say there is a situation where someone you care about makes you a meal...and then asks you if you like it...and you DON'T like it. BUT you don't want to hurt their feelings either.

So in this case there are conflicting values of honesty (telling the absolute truth) and charity (treating others with kindness)

In some situations it is easy to be honest...someone asks you what time it is and you tell them...there is no conflict or 'value weighing' to even consider...
Or if someone gets hurt and you go help them (charity)...no values conflict...

the thing is though, that values do not operate in a vaccuum...they are always interacting and clashing...

also there are some situations where in order to punish 2 people fairly that the actual punishment must be different~ for ex: there are 2 kids being punished and one of them loves to be in their room and the other one hates being in their room...so when it comes time to punish them, if they are both sent to their rooms one is suffering and one is not...that is not justice is it?

So basically just from those 2 situations above I have shown that sometimes it is right to not keep certain laws...and the REASON for that would be, that because there is a HIGHER law in effect in that situation...(and in the absence of that law, then the lower law should be kept)

And also I've shown that to be fair/ just, sometimes different punishment must be given out, so that it is appropriate to the person receiving it.

Those things are very counter-intuitive on the surface:
"disobeying some commandments is fine sometimes"
and "treating others differently is fair sometimes"

but nevertheless of it being counter-intuitive that seems to be the way it is...(imo)
higher laws and lower laws...

So how can we know what to do in situations like those?
We must receive revelation from God through the Holy Spirit, in order to be able to discern what the right thing to do is...of how to keep the higher law.
The Spirit weighs the deep things of God...
We can know WHAT to do immediately through the spirit and we can find out later WHY that was the right thing to do...(based on the various higher and lower laws in play at the time (for all people involved), and the overall weighing of them in God's eyes, with an eternal perspective on how that event inter-relates with all other events throughout eternity and the decisions and consequences which pertain to it)....

As a side note on the point of "sacrifices", I believe that at some point the sacrifices are supposed to return...there are prophecies of a "red heifer" being offered and daily (?) animal sacrifices taking place at the temple in Jerusalem I believe (when the temple is rebuilt)...So in that way I don't believe that animal sacrifice is totally done away forever...also in general the principle of 'sacrifice' is an eternal principle as well...us giving up things for a greater good.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2010 8:19:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 9:16:27 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
Is it really 'common'? (I searched a tiny bit online, but couldn't find any solid statistics)...If so, for what offenses? (if they have murdered people or something?)...

Well, a girl was stoned to death because she was found to be pregenant but was not married. And then there was the case where a girl was stoned because she was allegedly raped.

***also remember that Shariah Law is not the same as the Mosaic law...

Also remember that Shariah Law is based off the Quran and is an application of Mosiac Law.

(There have been many religious wars between Islam and Christianity.)
Yes, there have.
That parents have 'little problem' with stoning their own children is a difficult idea for me to accept...maybe it happens, but I would think it certainly would be seen as a problem to them and that they would be reluctant to do it, and wouldn't do it if they didn't see it as absolutely necessary. Some societies value the community's rights more than the individual's rights.

And i cannot see why you, someone who follows the bible, would have such a problem. Abraham, for example, is lauded because he tried to carry out sacrificing his first son when God told him to do so. What was the moral of this story? That following Gods commands, no matter what, is something that should be done without question and without hesitation. I doubt Abraham had "Little problem" sacrificing his son for God.

I will address your statement "and was obviously immoral?". Was it? by what standard?

By any standard that we would deem to be civilized.

I would question whether slavery really is good for the society overall...

Does not slavery increase productivity? Do you seriously think that any of the great monuments we have today, such as the Pyramid, or the Great Wall of China, would have been completed if we didnt have slaves?

But I would say that keeping people from idolatry and keeping people from murdering others and from stealing I think are good for the society overall...so do you think that makes those laws 'moral' and 'right'? What is the criteria for something being 'morally good' or 'right'?

Same as above. Although i find nothing wrong with people doing idolatry(are you saying that religious freedom is a bad thing?), if something was "morally good" or "Right", we should have NO PROBLEM implimenting it in todays society. So, in a way, if you have a hard time distinguishing what is morally good or right, think about what would happen if we implimented it in todays society.

Yes...
I think it is just. I think in our society we are not accustomed to raw, untempered JUSTICE...an eye for an eye...is that just? well I guess yes, it is!
I think that it may be that we are just so used to being given mercy or at least a measure of mercy that when justice comes down straight it is seen by some as being wrong.

Great! This is great.

So, when someone comes along, preaching about another religion, you think we should stone him to death? I love this.

When someone comes along and rapes a virgin, we should force the virgin to marry her rapist? Great idea!

Im glad youre up for these ideas, and im glad youre honest with your beliefs. I find none of these especially morally just or good, nor do i find the punishment Moral or Just or anything.

Here are some of my ideas on that too:
Say someone is caught stealing...IF carried out to the logical ends...stealing a persons food = the innocent person could have starved to death (in primitive societies)...therefore in summary STEALING = close to murder (or can be the direct cause of leading to a person's death)
And if the person stole from a wealthy merchant who had more than enough food? Would not the law apply to everyone? How do you justify the punishment in this case?
It is about how far you want to carry it...So say there is a whole tribe of people who are immoral and pillage and teach others to do that as well...say they descend upon a peaceful village and take all the food....So why should the innocent moral people be the ones to die?

Youre right, it is about how far you want to carry it... And if a weak, starving village decides to plunder the neighboring rich, wealthy village? Why should the starving village be punished?

...Could not God know that about that group of pillagers and take His army (whoever He may choose to do the job) and eliminate the pillagers?...and if He did, could it not be said that it was simply favoring the just over the unjust and have God be justified?

Is the entire village, INCLUDING the children, guilty of this crime? Should the unborn babies within the wombs of the mothers, be subject to the same punishments? Is killing them, justified?

NOW what if the practices of a particular group of people is causing people to die SPIRITUALLY? (Which is more harmful because it deals with ETERNAL consequences)...Will not God be justified in stopping people by whatever means were needed?...

Are not the people who are corrupted and/or die spiritually, just enacting their free will?

Furthermore, was it not God, but rather, Moses and his armies that carried out the deeds? If this is true, what should stop us from doing the same? Are you advocating we should kill people who belong to other religions and are trying to actively spiritually corrupt and spiritually kill people?

In the book of Mormon there is a very interesting story about a man named Laban...He has the brass plates (which contain the teachings which lead to salvation)...He refuses to give them up to Nephi and his brothers...they offer him much treasure and gold for them but he doesn't give them up, and he steals their gold and seeks to kill them...anyway...later on God commands Nephi to kill Laban and obtain the plates. So is God justified in this thing? Here is the scripture that pertains to this event:

Well, according to christian Doctrine, God is justified in doing anything, so this question is moot.

But the real problem here, is that, as stated above, it wasnt God, but people, who carried this judgement out. People like us. Therefore, are you saying that we should actively seek to kill people of other religions who are actively trying to spiritually corrupt others?


I am ok with killing in self defense (not really the same as 'murder'), and I'm ok with 'just' wars.
What is a "Just" war? Is it "Just" to wage war against a society simply because they do not believe in your God?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2010 8:20:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/6/2010 10:15:55 PM, heart_of_the_matter wrote:
I noticed I had not answered this part of your question...

I believe that the 10 Commandments are still in effect. Also yes the sacrificial laws have been fulfilled (for a time).

As far as the moral laws:

I believe that there are lower laws and that there are higher laws.
D&C 88:
36 All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
http://scriptures.lds.org...

Here is an example I like to use:
Say there is a situation where someone you care about makes you a meal...and then asks you if you like it...and you DON'T like it. BUT you don't want to hurt their feelings either.

So in this case there are conflicting values of honesty (telling the absolute truth) and charity (treating others with kindness)

In some situations it is easy to be honest...someone asks you what time it is and you tell them...there is no conflict or 'value weighing' to even consider...
Or if someone gets hurt and you go help them (charity)...no values conflict...

the thing is though, that values do not operate in a vaccuum...they are always interacting and clashing...

also there are some situations where in order to punish 2 people fairly that the actual punishment must be different~ for ex: there are 2 kids being punished and one of them loves to be in their room and the other one hates being in their room...so when it comes time to punish them, if they are both sent to their rooms one is suffering and one is not...that is not justice is it?

So basically just from those 2 situations above I have shown that sometimes it is right to not keep certain laws...and the REASON for that would be, that because there is a HIGHER law in effect in that situation...(and in the absence of that law, then the lower law should be kept)

And also I've shown that to be fair/ just, sometimes different punishment must be given out, so that it is appropriate to the person receiving it.

Those things are very counter-intuitive on the surface:
"disobeying some commandments is fine sometimes"
and "treating others differently is fair sometimes"

but nevertheless of it being counter-intuitive that seems to be the way it is...(imo)
higher laws and lower laws...

So how can we know what to do in situations like those?
We must receive revelation from God through the Holy Spirit, in order to be able to discern what the right thing to do is...of how to keep the higher law.
The Spirit weighs the deep things of God...
We can know WHAT to do immediately through the spirit and we can find out later WHY that was the right thing to do...(based on the various higher and lower laws in play at the time (for all people involved), and the overall weighing of them in God's eyes, with an eternal perspective on how that event inter-relates with all other events throughout eternity and the decisions and consequences which pertain to it)....

As a side note on the point of "sacrifices", I believe that at some point the sacrifices are supposed to return...there are prophecies of a "red heifer" being offered and daily (?) animal sacrifices taking place at the temple in Jerusalem I believe (when the temple is rebuilt)...So in that way I don't believe that animal sacrifice is totally done away forever...also in general the principle of 'sacrifice' is an eternal principle as well...us giving up things for a greater good.

Okay. So, my next question would be, how do you know which laws are lower, and which are higher? There are 613 laws.