Why dont Christians observe Kosher dietary laws?

[Adonia]

You have already called the Law “nonsense” and now “ridiculous.” To some, this description is not apt since the whole Law is interconnected with the Ten Commandments, not just parts of it. Moreover, the Law is not considered a burden or slavery of any sort, but on the contrary, a symbol and practice of free men and women and an act of sanctification on the part of G-d.

However, it is true that non-Jews, including Christians, need not observe the dietary laws according to BOTH Jewish and Christian teaching.

Oh come on! Doing something else like placing a string around the neighborhood outside and trying to say that you are really inside so you can go from here to there on the Sabbath is nothing but a façade. Surely you are not fooled by something like that, are you? Jesus Himself probably shakes His head in dismay at such things and this is part and parcel of the kind of stuff He came to rectify so everyone can be acceptable to God the Father.

 

[Lucretius]

And I would say that a male lying with a male is not inherently wrong in our current time, as many Jews would agree.

We could start shouting pass each other about the natural law and the purpose of sexual activity, but there are already many threads about that, huh?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Adonia]

And I would say that a male lying with a male is not inherently wrong in our current time, as many Jews would agree.

What? Sexual perversion such as that is always wrong - in our time or any other.

 

[Lucretius]

What? Sexual perversion such as that is always wrong - in our time or any other.

The debate is concerning whether sodomy is inherently wrong or not. Is it conventional or not?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[ComplineSanFran]

We could start shouting pass each other about the natural law and the purpose of sexual activity, but there are already many threads about that, huh?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Thank you, Lucretius. You are absolutely correct. I would delete the comment if I could.

 

[Lucretius]

Thank you, Lucretius. You are absolutely correct. I would delete the comment if I could.

The more interesting question to ask Meltzerboy is how a Jew can even loosen a Mitzvot, and thus we find one of the major differences between the Reformed and Orthodox Jews

You’re Welcome, btw.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[ComplineSanFran]

And even when this statement was first written in the Hebrew Bible, there were specific qualifications attached to it, thus giving rise to the debates about homosexuality within the Jewish community.

Meltzerboy, I once asked Levitical scholar Jacob Milgrom (do you know his work?) what his conclusions were about the Levitical passage. He began by talking about the loss of possibility of progeny being primary, then on to the implication of spilling seed, and then went into why he REALLY thought the prohibition was in place. I was lost - it was WAY beyond my understand of Leviticus. But the bottom line was that he could make an argument for same-sex unions in Judaism today.

 

[meltzerboy]

The more interesting question to ask Meltzerboy is how a Jew can even loosen a Mitzvot, and thus we find one of the major differences between the Reformed and Orthodox Jews

You’re Welcome, btw.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

There is the Law, and then there are different interpretations of the law by rabbis both within and between branches of Judaism. An individual Jew can study the rabbinical interpretations and decide for themselves which they will follow and to what extent. Or, more likely, they might act in accord with the teaching of their particular branch of Judaism. This may sound a bit un-orthodox, literally as well as figuratively, but it is done.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

There is the Law, and then there are different interpretations of the law by rabbis both within and between branches of Judaism. An individual Jew can study the rabbinical interpretations and decide for themselves which they will follow and to what extent. Or, more likely, they might act in accord with the teaching of their particular branch of Judaism. This may sound a bit un-orthodox, literally as well as figuratively, but it is done.

I often wish that Christianity had adapted ‘schools.’ ‘I am of the school of Hillel’ or ‘I am of the school of Shammai.’ You can agree to disagree. With integrity.

 

[Lucretius]

I often wish that Christianity had adapted ‘schools.’ ‘I am of the school of Hillel’ or ‘I am of the school of Shammai.’ You can agree to disagree. With integrity.

Christianity does have schools: the Thomists, the Molinists, the Augustinians, the Palamites, etc. The difference is that Christians have defined means to settle disputes. Jews don’t really have much of this.

My problem with many of the interpretations, in both Judaism and Christianity, is that they aren’t really interpretations: texts and words can produce an indefinite amount of interpretations, true, but texts still have a foundational determination, and you can’t “interpret it away.”

For example, I don’t see how you could interpret the Leviticus Commandment to not condemning sodomy, without making every Commandment arbitrary. I could see romances between men, or cuddling and even (sexual) kissing between men possibly being licit given different interpretations, but I don’t see how intercourse can be justified. Does that make sense?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[mikekle]

Jesus brought us a new covenant, one which fulfilled the promises made of old. The keeping of the old ritualistic, external laws was meant to prepare the Israelites for the new, to slowly discipline and improve God’s chosen people. They were not ends in themselves. The keeping of the old, external rules does not add to the amount of grace we receive, nor purify us in any way better or additional to the new covenant. We are able to obtain the fullness of God’s promises with the new covenant alone.

If the new covenant did away with all the OT laws, why are we still obligated to abide by the 10 commandments?

 

[Lucretius]

If the new covenant did away with all the OT laws, why are we still obligated to abide by the 10 commandments?

The Decalogue is a summary of all things that are evil in their very nature. Murder, for example, is always wrong, because it’s very nature is evil. Eating pork, however, isn’t inherently wrong, and so can be bound and loosen onto Israel under the guidence and wisdom of God.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Adonia]

The debate is concerning whether sodomy is inherently wrong or not. Is it conventional or not?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Conventional? No I do not believe it is conventional, not even between a male and female. It does not conform to what the “natural law” intended.

 

[Lucretius]

Conventional? No, not even between a male and female.

Sorry if I was unclear. We are asking if the Jewish ban on sodomy is a convention of their times or a reflection of the Lawmaker’s understanding of human nature.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Adonia]

Sorry if I was unclear. We are asking if the Jewish ban on sodomy is a convention of their times or a reflection of the Lawmaker’s understanding of human nature.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

The “lawmaker”. Are you referring to the Creator - or the leaders from the OT?

 

[Gorgias]

And I would say that a male lying with a male is not inherently wrong in our current time, as many Jews would agree.

Can something be ‘inherently wrong’ at one time and ‘not inherently wrong’ at some other time…?

 

[Lucretius]

The “lawmaker”. Are you referring to the Creator - or the leaders from the OT?

I had God in mind here.

 

[Lucretius]

Can something be ‘inherently wrong’ at one time and ‘not inherently wrong’ at some other time…?

I think he (she?) means that there was something in ancient times that made sodomy wrong, but now that thing is no longer, and thus it is no longer wrong.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Adonia]

I had God in mind here.

Well then, I believe He was has been abundantly clear on this one. I believe the Scriptures say he made them male and female, a husband and a wife (or wives - OT) it should be. Isn’t that a part of the “natural law” and anything else is a deviation from it?

 

[Lucretius]

Well then, I believe He was has been abundantly clear on this one. I believe the Scriptures say he made them male and female, a husband and a wife (or wives - OT) it should be. Isn’t that a part of the “natural law” and anything else is a deviation from it?

Yes, sodomy is condemned by the natural law. However, Meltzerboy disagrees. I cut off the argument because it isn’t the topic of this thread.

If I were to argue for same-sex unions, I would think probably more in terms of Romantic feelings and friendship, kindness and care for one another, and non intercourse-like contact when arguing for same-sex unions, because none of these things are obviously sin. When liberals use the word homosexuality, they tend to think more in terms of what I wrote above, while conservatives tend to think of homosexuality in terms of sodomy and anal intercourse. And thus everyone ends up shouting pass each other…liberals think we are condemning people for having feelings they can’t control, and abandoning them to lifelong loneliness, while conservatives think we are blessing sexual perversion. It’s more complicated than this, but this seems to me to be a major factor.

Christi pax,

Lucretius