To tea with Scribes and Pharisees?

[oldbadger]

I go to a tea 'n' chat meeting at a church hall on Tuesday mornings and the conversation there (among all kinds of people) is brilliant. One of the people at this event mentioned that there is another very good tea meeting at another hall nearby on Mondays, and so I went along yesterday. I'm retired and can do this kind of thing, ok?

I arrived at this venue yesterday and found myself sitting within a group of men. It was pleasant enough but some of these people seemed to be very stern in countenance and speech, and as we discussed the gospels one of these men butted in with a very aggressive 'Every word in the bible was guided by the hand of Lord God Almighty!'. He didn't say anything else, either before of afterwards as we sat at this table.

But as I have said, the conversation was alright, although one man wanted to teach me about the flood and Noah's Ark, and mentioned very sternly that the only reason why there are no unicorns in the world is because Noah made a mistake and brought two male unicorns aboard by accident........ at that point he gave me a knowing look. Then one told me about Sodom and Gomorrah, another lesson, and so I did my very very best to reverse in to my most diplomatic mode and just asked questions. The thing is, my wife doesn't come to such events, and the lady who made the tea wanted to know all about my wife, and why had she not come along. After about 90 minutes the meeting ended and the organiser came to shake my hand and asked how I had heard about that weekly event. I mentioned that I had heard about it all at the Tuesday tea 'n' chat meeting just down the road.

The people around me fell silent..... One said, 'They don't follow the bible!' and then the comments followed like machine gun fire....
They marry Gays down there!
......... wouldn't go there.......
...wouldn't have anything to do with them...
Eventually the organiser told me 'They don't follow Jesus down there', and at that point I felt that nobody there could possibly know about how Jesus lived. You see, Jesus took his food and drink with the lowliest, most sinful and corrupt lowlifes in society and these people around me were talking like the Pharisees that Jesus had so despised. So the Pharisees would not sit with the kinds of people where Jesus enjoyed his meals.

I never told them that, I just asked the organizer what he thought Jesus would have said, and he answered that Jesus ordered 'No sinning'.

So I ask you, would I find the love and understanding at the Monday meeting like the one mentioned, or the Tuesday one where the priests will marry any who are in love, no matter who? I think I'll stick with the Tuesday group, but I would be interested to read any replies from members.

[oldbadger]

Matthew 22:40
“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Well then stick to those two, is my suggestion.
That way the secular world will know your love and understanding whilst being freed from your attempts to control any others.
Is that fair?

[oldbadger]

Probably not perfectly.

I am not sure is that the law that is written into peoples heart, when they are born anew, but I support it, but no one else seems to support that, so my thinking doesn't matter much in this.

Fair enough.

[oldbadger]

Maybe Marcion wasn't wrong in wanting to eliminate all the OT stuff, because Christianity today still teaches that the old Laws and Commandments matter, when the Gospels actually teach that they don't.

A week ago a we were discussing the laws and Christian put hand over breast and said 'We are above the law', and an elderly man replied, 'Yes, you're above the law but you apply so much to everybody else'....... and a murmur of agreement was heard about the room.

[TRANSPONDER]

Maybe Marcion wasn't wrong in wanting to eliminate all the OT stuff, because Christianity today still teaches that the old Laws and Commandments matter, when the Gospels actually teach that they don't.

A week ago a we were discussing the laws and Christian put hand over breast and said 'We are above the law', and an elderly man replied, 'Yes, you're above the law but you apply so much to everybody else'....... and a murmur of agreement was heard about the room.

That would be known even without that example. Even before the last decade or so of post Tea Party religious demands that the US Law be made to suit whatever Right wing Christianity wants, the point was made (after Muhammad cartoon) by screaming muslims waving banners inscribed 'To Hell with man made law!". I knew then that religious preferences are always considered to trump man made morals, customs and laws. That's the problem and the danger. Morals and Law like science should be what the religion says, not what ethics, lawmaking and science says.

[William]

Matthew 22:40
“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Well then stick to those two, is my suggestion.
That way the secular world will know your love and understanding whilst being freed from your attempts to control any others.
Is that fair?

It appears to me that simplification is the key. The saying is related the principle of Occam's Razor.
Essentially, when faced with competing explanations for the same phenomenon, the simplest is likely the correct one.

As to been seen to be loving and understanding, the world (secular and other) has opportunity to know through the experience.
Adding (rightly or wrongly) laws claiming to be designed to guide personalities to live better lives together doesn't appear to be effective but does appear to put control into the hands of the few directors at the top positions of hierarchical social structures. People are sheep more than they are people. Fearful, ignorant and requiring guidance.



Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

There is enough for the personality to unpack in those words, without adding a library of laws to the equation...

[JehovahsWitness]

... do you support the law that gives all newlyweds a year's holiday?

That was part of the Mosaic law connected with conscription into the army. Although Christians are not subject to "Old testament law" (and do not belong to a nation whose army is appointed by God) it was a good law. It meant that a married man didn't risk being killed in battle and leaving his widow childless. Thus his name and inheritance would not be lost. It wasnt a "holiday" so much as simply the rules of conscription , similar to age and othe constraints.

[oldbadger]

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

There is enough for the personality to unpack in those words, without adding a library of laws to the equation...

There are 613 laws in the Old Testament's first books.
Christianity has gathered over 1000 rules, laws and guides to itself.

[oldbadger]

... do you support the law that gives all newlyweds a year's holiday?

That was part of the Mosaic law connected with conscription into the army. Although Christians are not subject to "Old testament law" (and do not belong to a nation whose army is appointed by God) it was a good law. It meant that a married man didn't risk being killed in battle and leaving his widow childless. Thus his name and inheritance would not be lost. It wasnt a "holiday" so much as simply the rules of conscription , similar to age and othe constraints.

It applied to all newly weds, I think.

[JehovahsWitness]

... do you support the law that gives all newlyweds a year's holiday?

That was part of the Mosaic law connected with conscription into the army. Although Christians are not subject to "Old testament law" (and do not belong to a nation whose army is appointed by God) it was a good law. It meant that a married man didn't risk being killed in battle and leaving his widow childless. Thus his name and inheritance would not be lost. It wasnt a "holiday" so much as simply the rules of conscription , similar to age and othe constraints.

It applied to all newly weds, I think.

All newly wed ARMY conscripts.

There was no social security , and few fathers in law would have accepted to support their new son in law for a year while he kicked back and did nothing.

Free Israelites all "worked" for themselves, it was not an employee/government run economy, it was a homstead agricultural system. If newly weds didnt work their land or support themselves for a whole year they would probably starve or fall into poverty and have to sell themselves into slavery. Where they would have to ....work.

[oldbadger]

... do you support the law that gives all newlyweds a year's holiday?

That was part of the Mosaic law connected with conscription into the army. Although Christians are not subject to "Old testament law" (and do not belong to a nation whose army is appointed by God) it was a good law. It meant that a married man didn't risk being killed in battle and leaving his widow childless. Thus his name and inheritance would not be lost. It wasnt a "holiday" so much as simply the rules of conscription , similar to age and othe constraints.

It applied to all newly weds, I think.

All newly wed ARMY conscripts.

Can you show me where it says that?

There was no social security , and few fathers in law would have accepted to support their new son in law for a year while he kicked back and did nothing.

The entire nation of the Israelites was a cohesive system that included support and care for all, by law.