I was raised Episcopal.
No one would have batted an eye if a completely random stranger came into church, sat through mass, and took Communion.
Then again, Episcopalians don't really do the whole "confession" thing.
It's basically Catholic-lite. Or Diet Catholic, if you prefer.
I prefer Diet Gaffer Tape. At least, I did...
TheBoost said:
How else does one define which laws about killing, hating people, menstrating or tattooing, should still be followed? Or when a Christian cites Levitical law, is it not "cherry picking" based on their own opinions?
None of the Levitical laws are binding to Christians. No index needed. Nothing to keep track of. No cherry picking involved. None of them. No laws forbidden Christians from having tattoos or requiring them to go through ridiculous procedures during menstruation, no laws requiring male genital mutilation. If a Christian cites Levitical law and says that Christians should be following it, then feel free to call him a cherry picker, unless he himself follows EVERY Levitical law. Otherwise, Christians have all the excuse in the world for not following Levitical law, it simply is not required of them.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
C3PX said:
If a Christian cites Levitical law and says that Christians should be following it, then feel free to call him a cherry picker, unless he himself follows EVERY Levitical law. Otherwise, Christians have all the excuse in the world for not following Levitical law, it simply is not required of them.
So we're in agreement that Evangelicals who cite leviticus to justify crummy behavior are... for lack of a better word... assholes?
ChainsawAsh said:
It's basically Catholic-lite. Or Diet Catholic, if you prefer.
An Episcopal minister I knew called it Junior Varsity Catholicism.
I, for one, do not believe that the Levitical laws were inspired by God. They just don't make sense. Callings a woman's menstrual cycle, something they can't avoid doing, a sin??? An all knowing all powerful god would not be that stupid.
I see where you're coming from, Warbler, but how does that fit into your larger perspective of Old Testament figures? Was Moses just a kook? Or was he a prophet, writing 5 books (Genesis -> Deuteronomy) of the word of God?
Or are you somehow excluding Leviticus from Moses's work as a prophet?
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
C3PX said:
TheBoost said:
How else does one define which laws about killing, hating people, menstrating or tattooing, should still be followed? Or when a Christian cites Levitical law, is it not "cherry picking" based on their own opinions?None of the Levitical laws are binding to Christians. No index needed. Nothing to keep track of. No cherry picking involved. None of them. No laws forbidden Christians from having tattoos or requiring them to go through ridiculous procedures during menstruation, no laws requiring male genital mutilation. If a Christian cites Levitical law and says that Christians should be following it, then feel free to call him a cherry picker, unless he himself follows EVERY Levitical law. Otherwise, Christians have all the excuse in the world for not following Levitical law, it simply is not required of them.
You are not contradicting anything I have said with that pic. The fulfillment of the law, according to the New Testament, was moving from the old covenant which was the law of Moses, to the new covenant.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
That's one reading, another is saying that the old laws are still in force but only God has the authority to punish transgressors (He who is without sin).
Otherwise Lego Obi-Wan would be saying "I am the chosen one promised by the prophets and I say the old rules are replaced by these new ones".
xhonzi said:
I see where you're coming from, Warbler, but how does that fit into your larger perspective of Old Testament figures? Was Moses just a kook? Or was he a prophet, writing 5 books (Genesis -> Deuteronomy) of the word of God?
Or are you somehow excluding Leviticus from Moses's work as a prophet?
I don't know, what I do know is that some of the laws in Leviticus are absolutely ridiculous. I do not believe God wanted those laws. Do you really think God wanted a woman having her period to be regarded as sin? I believe their is another verse that says if your child curses, you are to execute him/her. You really think God wanted that?
Warbler said:
I, for one, do not believe that the Levitical laws were inspired by God. They just don't make sense. Callings a woman's menstrual cycle, something they can't avoid doing, a sin??? An all knowing all powerful god would not be that stupid.
I wouldn't say that the text goes as far as saying it is a sin, but rather that it is uncleanliness. To keep the people of Israel in a state of Holiness, which is what the Levitical laws were for, the impurity of blood and menstruation must be dealt with.
Maybe you would call it semantics, but the difference seems clear to me.
sean wookie said:
...
Do I have to dress nice? I'd imagine I shouldn't wear a Rage Against The Machine shirt.
I'd suppose you may want to dress nicer. I'm curious to hear about your experience.
Sluggo said:
Warbler said:
I, for one, do not believe that the Levitical laws were inspired by God. They just don't make sense. Callings a woman's menstrual cycle, something they can't avoid doing, a sin??? An all knowing all powerful god would not be that stupid.
I wouldn't say that the text goes as far as saying it is a sin, but rather that it is uncleanliness. To keep the people of Israel in a state of Holiness, which is what the Levitical laws were for, the impurity of blood and menstruation must be dealt with.
Maybe you would call it semantics, but the difference seems clear to me.
so its not a sin huh?
30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.
if the woman hasn't sinned, why does she need to make atonement?
There has always been a gender specific dimension to the Eden explanation for the suffering of humanity.
Man has to work for his dinner against the forces of nature and women have to suffer pain in childbirth and the bleeding thing.
Seeing as Jesus is to Christians (and Muslims) the Messiah promised by the Old Testament prophets you can't have the dessert until you have had the starter and the main course.
Either it's the same God in both books or you take a Gnostic approach and say the Old Testament God is not the same God that sent Jesus. Which begs the question why didn't he say that?
Four Lions is a great parable of how some Muslims also take this pick and mix take on their holy book.
There is the peaceful brother who shuts away all the women in a converted toilet so they are out of sight of the men, the more modern brother who has none of that nonsense but plans to blow himself up for his faith with his wife's blessing and his fellow Jihadi who will only film his suicide video with a box on his head because depictions of the human form are against the Koran.
The sin offering is they type of offering, in contrast to the burnt offering. It was an offering of animal sacrifice, mostly of anointing the sacrificial altar with the blood of the animal. The burnt offering is a different category where the sacrificial animal is generally consumed in flame on the altar.
In the instances of these specific sacrifices in question, the word sin is attached to the name of the offering rather than the action it is purifying.
Sluggo said:
sean wookie said:
...
Do I have to dress nice? I'd imagine I shouldn't wear a Rage Against The Machine shirt.
I'd suppose you may want to dress nicer. I'm curious to hear about your experience.
Yeah, I have some nice shirts. So that shouldn't be a problem. I want to visit the Church tomorrow to look around.
Casing the joint?
:p
Sin offerings are usually performed when someone has unwittingly got themselves into a ritually unclean state.
Having a baby, having dry rot in your house the Kohen isolates you, performs the prescribed action and when you are in the clear kills an animal because God likes blood and burned animals.
But these things have a root in a personal or group divine retribution.
God has smitten you with mildew for some offense to his person (usually gossip), God makes your wife bleed because she is a woman and descended from a long line of scrumpers and you let he sit on a chair when she was on the blob so you are unclean too.
It's all rather daft but it's all part of the same line of progression which validates Jesus as the messiah so you really can't have one without the other unless you just write a new Bible.
TheBoost said:
sean wookie said:
I think it would be a nice experiment and generally try to blend in as a recent Catholic convert. I'd confess my sins, converse with other Catholics, learn what they believe and why the believe it, and attend mass like everyone else, and any other Church events as long as it doesn't conflict with work. And blog about of all this.
As a recent convert, you won't confess. There's a rather rigorous training program for new Catholics, unless you're planning to bluff your way in as a fully confirmed Catholic. You also can attend mass, but not take communion.
Not that they check credentials at the door, but it depends on how dishonest you plan on being.
I'm with Boost on this one. If you're interested in learning about Christianity, with a lean toward Catholicism, just go talk to your neighborhood priest or read an article or book. There is also a Catholic forum.
You seem to be under the impression that this is some sort of secret society where your neighbors show their true selves once they give the secret password to get into a weekly gathering.
It's just church. It's people listening to thoughts on what they believe is our origin and future. A sort of mental re-grounding from the stresses of the week. You don't have to sneak in with a disguise and hope to bluff your way through without being caught.
Might also help you get a clearer understanding by doing a little reading on why there are several different churches of Christianity. People have been expressing differences of opinion on the Bible for a very long time. Look into why there are Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants (Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Evangelical, et al), Jehovah's Witness, Latter Day Saints, and a few others.
Look into the Society Of Friends they don't take scripture literally and prefer to focus on personal revelation.
Some branches don't even insist in believing in the biblical God actually existing and you can be a Buddhist and a member at the same time.
I've always enjoyed working with them.
No priests, no hymns, no pledges, no war, just sitting down in silence until something urgent rises to your lips.
Lots of good deeds done.
If I were to join a group of a religious flavour they would be the one I'd go for.
Anchorhead said:
You seem to be under the impression that this is some sort of secret society where your neighbors show their true selves once they give the secret password to get into a weekly gathering.
This might be a side effect of his background as a Jehovah's Witness. Sean, I might be mistaken, but don't they basically have a neighborhood watch going on during the week?
Bingowings said:
... just sitting down in silence until something urgent rises to your lips.
... Some just can't !...
Mwahaha !... Ahem.... :P
What, you just noticed that now? Where you been the past year plus?