You may well have “already covered this” but that’s a far cry from you being correct.
It’s not me who “invented the division of law” because historically that is how the Mosaic Law has always been understood by theologians through the ages, including Augustine, Aquinas, the Reformers and the Puritans - they all believed that the Bible contains three types of law; the moral, the civil and the ceremonial - that the civil and ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ but the moral law has not been done away with and is still binding to both believers and unbelievers. This notion that Christ replaced the Law with love became fashionable during the 1960s - the era of the ’Lurve Generation’ but it is erroneous.
Eating pork is not a moral issue, but lying, stealing, homosexuality, besti@lity etc. most certainly are, and much as you would like to blur the distinction between the various facets of the law as a cloak for immorality, you are deceiving yourself.
14 comments
"Augustine, Aquinas, the Reformers and the Puritans - they all believed that the Bible contains three types of law; the moral, the civil and the ceremonial - that the civil and ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ but the moral law has not been done away with and is still binding to both believers and unbelievers. Anything I approve of - like eating pork - is not a moral issue, but anything I am against - like lying, stealing, homosexuality, besti@lity etc. - most certainly are. And much as you would like to suggest otherwise, you are deceiving yourself."
Unless you're prepared to obey all of Levitical law, then you don't have the right to so much as think of having an 'Opinion' about other peoples' morals.
Not seeing 'Thou Shalt Not Have Sex With The Same Gender' in the Big 10, OP.
What did Jesus have to say about the issue? Nothing? Then it cannot be claimed that this is a christian stance. Augutinian, Aquinian, Paulian or whatever, but not christian. The managers of the shop are not the same as the boss, and if you take the word of the managers over the word of the boss, then you cannot claim to act on the boss' behalf.
As Anon-e-moose points out, the one possible proscription against homosexuality isn't in the 10 Commandments. Rather, it's just between the dietary laws and the clothing laws . . . no eating pork, no wearing mixed fabrics. If both of those are okay, why is this one thing in the middle not?
Another point. Everyone past the 10 Commandments is called man's law by these kinds of people . . . but I've read it, and it keeps saying over and over, the LORD commands. All throughout what is called civil and ceremonial law, the LORD commands.
Oh, and it is abomination that man should lie with man as man would lie with woman? So is that wearing mixed fabrics. Better check your shirt tags before you go to hell!
You're just trying to find ways to justify not following parts of the bible while insisting that everyone follow other parts of the bible... even from the very same book. And I highly suspect you're arbitrarily deciding what Mosaic laws are moral, civil, or ceremonial.
Besides, I thought that to God lying is just as bad a sin as murder, so why is there any difference?
Okay genius! Here's an exercise....
1. Write three lists. One for Moral, one for Civil, one for Ceremonial. Put the sins under the appropriate list.
Frankly; The whole "Moral/Ceremonial/Civil thingy" reeks of "Moving the goalposts in response to the 'Why Can't I Own Canadians?' argument".
Well, it's nice that the laws are clearly marked as to which type they are.
Isn't eating pork a moral issue? I know a few Jews, and plenty of Muslims, who would disagree with that. Hey, choose to live by what you want, but you don't have the right to condemn others.
You remind me of the footballer Israel Folau, who came under fire for condemning gays. You see, Leviticus 19:28 forbids tattoos, and he's about as inked as a printing press.
Eating pork: Hurts the pig
Lying: Hurts the person lied to
Stealing: Hurts the person stolen from
Beastiality: Hurts the animal as animals cannot consent
Homosexuality: Hurts nobody as long as sexual behavior occurs between two consenting adults
Huh. In my opinion, eating pork is way worse than being gay. And I say that as a avid lover of bacon!
"Eating pork is not a moral issue,"
It leads to homosexuality, according to muslims, so how can it not be a moral issue?
Nobody rewrites the Bible more than those that claim they're dedicated to it. here a clue, if you see "It’s not me who" it's usually a clue you've got someone who knows little of the Bible or even less of its history.
And it's usually fundamentalist who listen to preachers, none of them scholars or even literate. It's all dogma and tied to conservative politic for decades. And this guys one, no one cites Puritans as authority except RW fundies.
Nobody rewrites the Bible more than those that claim they're dedicated to it. here a clue, if you see "It’s not me who" it's usually a clue you've got someone who knows little if the Bible or even less of its history.
And it's usually fundamentalist who listen to preachers, none of them scholars or even literate. It's all dogma and tied to conservative politic for decades. And this guys one, no one cites Puritans as authority except RW fundies.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
