What is the moral lesson to be learned from this bible verse?

Quote from: Grain on January 28, 2009, 03:27:46 PM

Deuteronomy 23:1-2 (KJV)

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

lmao!!!!! Wow, that's a keeper. I didn't know about that verse. Amazing!

And it doesn't even matter because it no longer applies.

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on February 06, 2009, 03:20:59 PM

Quote from: Grain on January 28, 2009, 03:27:46 PM

Deuteronomy 23:1-2 (KJV)

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

lmao!!!!! Wow, that's a keeper. I didn't know about that verse. Amazing!

Quote

And it doesn't even matter because it no longer applies.

Quote from: KingMan on February 06, 2009, 08:25:50 PM

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on February 06, 2009, 03:20:59 PM

Quote from: Grain on January 28, 2009, 03:27:46 PM

Deuteronomy 23:1-2 (KJV)

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

lmao!!!!! Wow, that's a keeper. I didn't know about that verse. Amazing!

Quote

And it doesn't even matter because it no longer applies.

But didn't Jesus say "Do not think I have come to abolish the law [...]."

Why, if Jesus didn't abolish the law, should those laws no longer apply?

(assuming you are a Christian who doens't like those two particular part of the Bible in question)

Deuteronomy 23:1-2 (KJV)

1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

There are two different verses that speak of 'abolishing the law', one states that he did and one states that he didn't.  Each instance is a different translation of the word abolish, one being 'to destroy' and the other being to 'pass away'.  Also 'the law' does not mean all laws, in the context of each instance he is speaking of specific laws of sacrificial requirements and separation of jew/gentile and priest/layman respectively.

Is that explicitly or implicitly stated by Christ in these verses? If so, mind posting them?

Quote from: ItRestsOnInfiniteTurtles on February 10, 2009, 03:07:59 PM

Is that explicitly or implicitly stated by Christ in these verses? If so, mind posting them?

Implicitly in the context of what they are discussing.  Matthew 5 has the discussion of not abolishing the law but fulfilling it if you are curious.

By law he means the Commandments

Quote from: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 04:07:49 PM

By law he means the Commandments

Not quite.  "Law and the Prophets" was a commonly used phrase in this time period meaning the entire old testament. 

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

Commandments and 'The Ten Commandments' are not the same linguistically.

Quote from: Robbyj on February 10, 2009, 06:06:32 PM

Commandments and 'The Ten Commandments' are not the same linguistically.

They were called the Ten Commanments and he refers to the "Commandments". You're right, Theres no way they're connected

Quote from: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 06:15:38 PM

Quote from: Robbyj on February 10, 2009, 06:06:32 PM

Commandments and 'The Ten Commandments' are not the same linguistically.

They were called the Ten Commanments and he refers to the "Commandments". You're right, Theres no way they're connected

There are many more commandments than the 10 Christians are taught.  Jesus, being a Jew, would have been referring to all the commandments. http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/mitzvot.htm

A list of the 613 commandments http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/613.htm

Yeah, a lot of those are stupid.

For example:

To light a fire on the altar every day Lev. 6:6
Not to extinguish this fire Lev. 6:6

How the hell do you light a fire you haven't extinguished?

Proof that religion fails.

A list of the 613 commandments http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/613.htm

I read that the Jews don't abide by a lot of those laws anymore, because they don't apply.. something like that.  At least they realize that religion doesn't have to be dead.   

Yeah, a lot of those are stupid.

For example:

To light a fire on the altar every day Lev. 6:6
Not to extinguish this fire Lev. 6:6

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 11, 2009, 10:22:46 AM

A list of the 613 commandments http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/613.htm

Note that that's only one opinion on what the 613 are. There's a fair bit of disagreement on how to count up and divide them. The link given gives one of the most common division.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 18, 2009, 04:58:57 PM

I read that the Jews don't abide by a lot of those laws anymore, because they don't apply.. something like that.  At least they realize that religion doesn't have to be dead.   

Not exactly. Different Jewish groups keep different sets of the rules. Among the more Orthodox there are often complicated logical arguments to justify not following some of the harsher old laws. For example, without a Sanhedrin (the high court of Rabbis from ancient times) there can't be any use of death penalties. And even in ancient times the Rabbis set up incredibly high standards of evidence in order to be able to carry out a death sentence.

But that's basically what I said.. the old laws don't apply, or can't be applied.  (some of them)

And, yeah I provided a link to the most commonly accepted laws, because I don't know enough about Judaism.  I looked at a few different sites and most of them had the same 613 laws.  If you know of some other sites worth reading, I'd be interested. 

If I might add my two cents. A lot of the 613 rules apply to sacrifices and other events which can only take place at the temple of Solomon (destroyed by the romans). Since the temple does not exist those rules do not apply. If the temple was ever rebuilt, then these laws would once again take effect.  Sorry, but it seemed like there was some confusion.

Quote from: Guessed on February 18, 2009, 07:14:09 PM

If I might add my two cents. A lot of the 613 rules apply to sacrifices and other events which can only take place at the temple of Solomon (destroyed by the romans). Since the temple does not exist those rules do not apply. If the temple was ever rebuilt, then these laws would once again take effect.  Sorry, but it seemed like there was some confusion.

Again, the distinctions between different movements in Judaism becomes relevant. The response above is consistent with what most Orthodox Jews would say. But most Conservative would likely say that even if the Temple is rebuilt sacrifices will not occur since we've grown beyond that (or something like that). Even some Orthodox Jews will subscribe to some variant of that idea.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 11, 2009, 10:22:46 AM

A list of the 613 commandments http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/practices/613.htm

Note that that's only one opinion on what the 613 are. There's a fair bit of disagreement on how to count up and divide them. The link given gives one of the most common division.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on February 18, 2009, 04:58:57 PM

I read that the Jews don't abide by a lot of those laws anymore, because they don't apply.. something like that.  At least they realize that religion doesn't have to be dead.   

Not exactly. Different Jewish groups keep different sets of the rules. Among the more Orthodox there are often complicated logical arguments to justify not following some of the harsher old laws. For example, without a Sanhedrin (the high court of Rabbis from ancient times) there can't be any use of death penalties. And even in ancient times the Rabbis set up incredibly high standards of evidence in order to be able to carry out a death sentence.

Quote from: Hara Taiki on February 18, 2009, 01:40:24 PM

Yeah, a lot of those are stupid.

For example:

To light a fire on the altar every day Lev. 6:6
Not to extinguish this fire Lev. 6:6

You know, it maybe should occur to you that these rules were actually kept in ancient times. So if there was that blatant a problem in them that maybe, just maybe you were misreading it? I looked up the verses in question (you mean Leviticus 6:12-13, not Leviticus 6:6 as far as I can tell since 6:6 is talking about a specific offering). There's no obligation there to light a fire every day. There's an obligation to keep a continually lit flame. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the verse in question required a flame lit every day. Here's a translation of 12-13 (I'm using the NAS because I'm too lazy to translate the Hebrew myself at the moment and NAS is online so I can just copy paste): "The fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it. It shall not go out, but the priest shall burn wood on it every morning; and he shall lay out the burnt offering on it, and offer up in smoke the fat portions of the peace offerings on it. Fire shall be kept burning continually on the altar; it is not to go out." Now, where did you get your idea about what this says?

From the part of me that says religion is for faggots with nothing better to do than talk to themselves at night (and some during the day).

Fair enough. I suppose it's a matter of interpretation (which may or may not have been your point). That's another problem for me with organized religion, preachers are given the power of interpretation. It not only adds to ambiguity ( for instance, the difference in interpretation you just presented) and quite frankly it's inuslting to the intelligence of followers. If they aren't smart enough to interpret the words of the faith they follow, then why would god want them to worship "him" anyway?

Quote from: Hara Taiki on February 18, 2009, 09:43:51 PM

From the part of me that says religion is for faggots with nothing better to do than talk to themselves at night (and some during the day).

So you got the wrong verse, massively misread it, and then posted that here. There are a lot of serious issues with the Biblical texts, but this isn't one of them. You are being at least as irrational as the religious individuals you apparently despise. 

How am I being equally irrational? It's not my fault that religion is incredulous.