Comment by Misty: Baytheist Living! on July 16, 2009 at 10:05am

Abortion was a known event that was completely allowable until the time of quickening(when a mother could feel the first movement) up until about five hundred years ago when one of the Catholic popes decided it was a bad thing to allow any procreation to be meddled with by man. God opens and closes the womb, but apparently not the legs!
As for homosexuality.. no one I talk to has an answer. The same page states that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, but that isn't considered the case anymore, either.
There is no justification, as far as I know.

Comment by Wendy on July 16, 2009 at 12:07pm

Sure there's a justification (though not written in the "Good" book) - fear of the unfamiliar.

Comment by James on July 16, 2009 at 2:06pm

I hate the argument that Jesus cleaned away the new testament laws. If you actually read it, it says rather clearly (to me) that Jesus came to add to the law, not overturn it. It also states that the law shall never change even in the slightest degree until 'heaven and earth pass' (rapture or armageddon).

I understand why they try this tactic; there is some nasty shit in the old testament that they are trying to hide and get away from. Trouble is, they still use the old testament as justification when it suits them. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways fundies.

Comment by Nelson on July 16, 2009 at 3:04pm

justification for keeping the ten commandments is pointed to in Mark 10:17-19 (cf. Matt 19:16-19) plus 1 John 5:3. but offering the verses Mark and Matt as a justification for keeping just the ten commandments while ignoring the others is a misunderstanding of Jesus' teachings. in these verses Jesus is telling the Rich Young Man that he needs to follow the commandments to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. the word "commandments" is simply the English translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew word mitzvot (singular- mitzvah). in the Hebrew Bible that word is the name for the laws, all 613 of them. Jesus of course doesn't specify that he means just the first ten of the commandments. the Rich Young Man asks Jesus which of the commandments he would need to follow. Jesus replies by listing a few of the first of the 613 mitzvot- "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother. (Mark 10:19)." Christians find that Jesus here is saying that the Rich Young Man, and so all Christians, need only follow the ten commandments and not the others. but when you take a closer look at the verses you find that that's not what he's saying at all.
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"

if you listen to this in your mind, the way it would sound in conversation you can see that Jesus is saying, "you know the commandments, why are you asking me?" and then he proceeds to rattle off some of the first few of the 613. to assert that Jesus means that a person need only follow these that he lists and none of the others you'd have to explain why Jesus skips over the commandments "you shall have no other gods before me", is it or is it not ok to believe in other gods?; "you shall make no graven images (idolatry)", is idolatry permissible or isn't it?; "you shall not take the lord's name in vain", this is a big one among Christians and yet here Jesus doesn't say that this commandment should be followed! moreover, a person making the argument that Jesus only meant that a person needs to follow these commandments and no others would need to explain why Jesus elsewhere says:
"I 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. Anyone 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." (Matt 5:18-19)

"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law." (Luke 16:17)

Jesus clearly meant for the Law to be followed in its entirety. it was only Paul who felt otherwise. since Pauline Christianity is what survived the debates between proponents of different early versions of Christianity, that's what Christians believe today.

as for 1 John 5:3 the "commands" being referred to here are not the commandments as in the Mosaic Law but rather Jesus personal teachings. the Amplified Bible explains, "For the [true] love of God is this: that we do His commands [keep His ordinances and are mindful of His precepts and teaching]."
"His" here is understood to mean Jesus.

nevertheless, these are the common justification for ignoring the other 603 mitvot while following the first ten.

justification for the condemnation of homosexuality is pointed to in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and in Romans 1:26-27. there are problems with this too as a justification. first of all Romans isn't necessarily referring to homosexuality here but perhaps prostitution. regardless, these verses are in Paul's letters and so represent his opinions and not the teachings of Jesus. Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality much less condemns the practice. the question must be answered: is the religion appropriately called Christianity or Paulianity?

hope that helps.

Comment by Wassabi on July 17, 2009 at 2:24am

thank you nelson.

i once spoke with a christian fundamnetalist in new zealand, and asked her why doesn't she observe the 613 commandments, and her answer struck me.

she said- "well, i guess i don't need to because jesus still answers my prayers anyway and makes everything i wish- come true"

this is something which doesn't exist in judaism to that extent- the depiction of jesus as some Genie god form Aladdin who makes all wishes come true. rather childish....

Comment by Johnny on July 17, 2009 at 9:58am

Nelson, that response is awesome!

On a side-bar Yonny, the Christian sect of Seventh-Day Adventist is somewhat interesting in its attempt to follow many of the laws from the old testament. They really are a Christian sect who has tried to re-add some Jewish traditions and laws into their doctrine. Of course most of them don't realize this, and will get upset when you imply as much. They base it all on the teaching of their prophet, Ellen White.

They keep the sabbath (no work or anything that might distract you from god, from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday), they take kosher and unclean animal laws a step further and consider all animals unclean (some of their more rigid sects go 100% vegan), they only condone divorce in the case of a spouse apostatizing (and not at all in the rigid sects). They have some other weird adaptions too, so they take it a step further than most Christians, but still do some "pick-and-choose."

Comment by Nelson on July 17, 2009 at 5:12pm

thanks Johnny! i enjoyed your response too! having never looked into the beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventists i didn't know that about them. interesting stuff.

as a quick addendum to my response i realized i might have made it sound like Jesus, having never said anything specifically about homosexuality in the bible, wouldn't be against it but of course since Jesus himself taught that the Mosaic Law should be kept, and since proscriptions against homosexuality are a part of the that Law, he surely would have been against it too. i only made the point that Jesus doesn't say anything about it to highlight the fact that Christians, only those Christians who do so of course, when justifying their bigotry regarding homosexuals by pointing to NT verses, are basing their beliefs on Paul's words in the bible rather than Jesus'.

Comment