pennypie Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I think a lot of it would have had some element of sensible rationale in the particular time and place, for reasons we wouldn't be able to guess randomly (though some of the food rules would have obviously derived from safety issues and taboos about things that ate corpses). It's like superstitions that originated in some practical sense but got dislodged from their root and ended up done for their own sake. Or Old Wives Tales that turn out to have a grain of truth in them. Or those archaic laws that turn out to still be on the statute books. It's very interesting in its own way, though I wonder if they would have thought it strange if people were to still 'religiously' stick to the Biblical rules long after any practical sense became obsolete? You would have had to know the background to the reasons some of the things were written. The context was key to the reason for the law. For instance, it does say that divorce is wrong, what it doesn't say on the site is that it is allowed in the case of sexual contact with another party. When it says about divorcing the wife of your youth for another or something, what the article doesn't say is that a lot of people were living like we are today and getting bored of their wives and just binning them off for a 'better model'. Does that make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I challenge you to have a guess what some might be before you click on the link to see the list. It's inconsequential unless you're a practicing Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdyamos Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Yes, Pennypie, that's what I was flailing about trying to say. The historical contexts of things make them appear more like dealing with the issues of the time and place. It's when people insist the rules can never be changed even when the context is completely different that they come to appear ludicrous. I expect many of our own laws will look bizarre hundreds of years hence, but it would be equally bizarre if people then were still trying to impose them in totally different contexts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 'Thou shalt not start yet another thread about religion when there be a hundred others on the go already: for, t'were another subject, thou should bring about the wrath of the Moderators, and be strongly advised to use the 'search' option before starting another thread. Amen.' It just wouldn't be a good religion thread without you coming on and whining about it being a religion thread would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 It's inconsequential unless you're a practicing Christian. Even practicing christians will do stuff on the list. I find it odd how the word of god can be ignored and laws are made my mere mortals that contradict His word. God should know what he is doing. After all he made us all and everything else in 144 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennypie Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Yes, Pennypie, that's what I was flailing about trying to say. The historical contexts of things make them appear more like dealing with the issues of the time and place. It's when people insist the rules can never be changed even when the context is completely different that they come to appear ludicrous. I expect many of our own laws will look bizarre hundreds of years hence, but it would be equally bizarre if people then were still trying to impose them in totally different contexts. I agree with you are saying, except that a lot of the rules were from Leviticus (early books of the bible) when people were still subjected to the mosaic law, but that ended when Jesus died so a lot of them became irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I'll tell you the ones I can think of off the top of my head...? 1) You can't wear clothing made of mixed fibres. It has to be one fibre or the other. 2) You can't eat a certain section of an animals hip where the tendon is, that's forbidden. 3) You can eat fish with scales, but not fish without scales, and you can't eat shellfish. 4) You can't eat an animal which you have found already dead, (IE roadkill) 5) if you are lame, if you have crushed or missing testes, or you have leprosy, you cannot be a priest. 6) You cannot travel more than a certain distance on the sabbath. 7) oh, and eating pig meat (pork ham bacon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 I agree with you are saying, except that a lot of the rules were from Leviticus (early books of the bible) when people were still subjected to the mosaic law, but that ended when Jesus died so a lot of them became irrelevant. So the bible is irrelevant? Did the one about 'Man not laying with man' become irrelevant too, as Monics mentions at the end of the piece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 I'll tell you the ones I can think of off the top of my head...? 1) You can't wear clothing made of mixed fibres. It has to be one fibre or the other. 2) You can't eat a certain section of an animals hip where the tendon is, that's forbidden. 3) You can eat fish with scales, but not fish without scales, and you can't eat shellfish. 4) You can't eat an animal which you have found already dead, (IE roadkill) 5) if you are lame, if you have crushed or missing testes, or you have leprosy, you cannot be a priest. 6) You cannot travel more than a certain distance on the sabbath. 7) oh, and eating pig meat (pork ham bacon) Not bad at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I'll tell you the ones I can think of off the top of my head...? (with cite) 1) You can't wear clothing made of mixed fibres. It has to be one fibre or the other. cite? (Leviticus 19:19) 2) You can't eat a certain section of an animals hip where the tendon is, that's forbidden. Genesis 32:32 3) You can eat fish with scales, but not fish without scales, and you can't eat shellfish. cite ?(Leviticus 11:9–12) 4) You can't eat an animal which you have found already dead, (IE roadkill) 5) if you are lame, if you have crushed or missing testes, or you have leprosy, you cannot be a priest. Deuteronomy 23:1 6) You cannot travel more than a certain distance on the sabbath. 2,000 cubits . (cite? (Leviticus 19:19) ) 7) oh, and eating pig meat (pork ham bacon) "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." Deuteronomy 14:8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.