I mean, that’s presumably all written in the Bible. More often than not, the question isn’t what he said but what he meant by it, and there’s certainly no shortage of opinions on that.
Nah, there’s plenty of stuff in the Bible he probably didn’t say, but there’s also stuff in the Bible we’re pretty sure he did say. You have to remember that even in the 50-100 years between when Jesus died and when the gospels were written the “Christians” underwent massive change. You can see people insert more and more material as they get further and further from his death.
Now, I suppose it depends on what you consider massive, but like, Jesus never claimed to be God or the son of God or anything like that. He considered himself to be a prophet warning people about the end of the world where God would judge people for their deeds. This was supposed to happen within his lifetime. There’s lots of advice he gives that makes a lot more sense in that context.
Compare that with the stuff we think is later additions to “his” message, and you start to see things that make more sense if maybe the world isn’t going to end in the next few years afterall… They also added a lot of stuff that only makes sense if Jesus is divine, which is not something he ever claimed to be. But you can see the divinity crank up the further from his death we get.
I agree that is one of the more common things to debate, probably more common than what he did say. But that’s also only true as long as you confine yourself to the Bible as it exists today. When you look into the history, archeological record, and textual criticism though, things get much more complicated as quite a few more groups wrote about what Jesus was purported to teach than the Catholic and Protestant churches would like you to believe.
Robert Price’s, “Pre-Nicene New Testament” is a good introduction to just how diverse and radically different early Christianity was. Bart Erhman is another great author who clearly cares more about what’s true, than what fits a churches dogma.
Capybaras are classified as fish in Catholic canon law, on the grounds that they spend their lives in water. I’m guessing that a party of conquistadors was on the verge of starvation and got their priest to petition the Vatican to issue a retroactive ruling in their favour.
Iirc, both Jewish and Islamic law are explicit that if you can break kosher/eating halal if you have no other options for food. Keeping yourself alive is more important.
Is there not something similar in catholic theology?
I’m kinda tempted to go to a catholic priest, tell them my full life story and see if they could even come up with penance for me. Like as a gay trans man, I imagine I’d be told to detransition but I’m far enough along that I can’t really go back - I’m not even sure what they’d consider a sin at this point.
Not a Catholic but fairly knowledgeable about the religion. I believe your transition would be accepted as long as you don’t live in sin by performing any acts of sodomy. The Catholics study theology relentlessly, and I’m sure they already had a way of dealing with the fair number of intersex babies born without dooming them to a life spent in unintentional sin.
The church has never expressed an issue with homosexuality, only homosexual acts. And even those acts aren’t a sin due to the homosexual intent, they’re a sin because of the sodomy.
Remember though, sodomy is a blanket term here for “sex acts not capable of producing children” so for you that would be… All of them I suppose.
I suspect that the suggested answer would be the one they give to all gay men, for you to live as a man, but be celibate. Devote your life to God, maybe even become a monk back in the old days. A lot of monks were “confirmed bachelors”
The current pope is pretty lenient towards LGBTQ+ compared to most other religions and especially compared to old school Catholic pope’s. Jesus was a man of peace and the current pope seems to think that was his ultimate message for mankind.
You can save yourself from all of them, there is no irredeemable sin in any Christ based faith. Only ones that need more explaining, hedging and tithing than others.
What what? Are you saying I can denounce “the holy spirit” and no catholic ever gets to bother me again? Not even theoretically? That is great! Also, woud the church become sinners themselves if they know about one of their members denouncing and they proceed to collect church tax? Nice loophole if ;)
Fun fact: you stay a Catholic when you announce that you are leaving the church, and even when the pope excommunicates you. According to the church, there’s no way to leave once you’ve been baptized.
That sounds like the kind of abusive hostage situation that we westerners tend to associate with Islam, with no formal way to get out. Interesting, TIL…
If you want to get really technical, in Jewish theory there’s an argument in the Talmud or Mishrad that says that as long as the dish is less than 1/16 or 1/32 (something like that,) of the non halal meat, then it can be considered kosher as well
I’m not Jewish, I just studied religions for a while. Someone who is Jewish can correct me on the proper percentage
I am Jewish, but the only way I will correct you is by saying it’s a bunch of centuries-old religious nonsense that has nothing to do with actual nutritional science.
Yes. “Bescheisser” is an extra rude way to say cheater.
The suffix -le is the Swabian diminutive, it derives from -lein, but they rarely make the distinction between -lein and -chen. Maybe because, like me, they don’t care about the official grammar on using them (I don’t even know the rules, I would have to look them up lol).
The Maulbronn monchs once decided that anything living in their pond was fish. Ducks, geese and apparently once a cow drowned and was thus declared a fish.
Fish isn’t considered meat because English and Latin are slightly different languages. For hundreds of years Catholics were not allowed to eat meat on Friday. But the language of the church is Latin, and what Catholics were not allowed to eat is ‘carne’ which is the flesh of creatures from the land or the sky. So fish was fine.
Also. around the mediterrainian, fish is a food staple of the poor. The point is to eliminate excess.
I’d argue that an inlander ordering fish at a fancy restaurant on a Friday during Lent is not following the spirit of the law (which can be more of a discipline than a rule, depending on the local episcopal authority), especially if it’s not a special occasion and the fish was caught hundreds of kilometers away.
My favorite is the string they put all around Manhattan, so that they can trick God into thinking that they’re really at home while running errands on shabbat.
Michael Chabon’s “The Yiddish Policeman’s Union” sent me down a rabbit hole of reading up on all the loopholes, I forget what they’re called now, but they’re pretty fascinating.
Eh, they don’t really view it as “tricking God”, because in their view you can’t trick God.
It’s pretty specific that you’re not allowed to transfer things between “domains” in specific ways, and that a domain is a property of enclosure, not ownership.
The intent was clearly to keep people from leaving their communities on the holy day, given that the stories talk about bringing things into and out of Jerusalem being the problem, and use “home” in the context where a new Yorker would reasonably call Manhattan home.
Further, if your religion is literally the source of “the spirit versus the letter of the law” reaction of Christianity, then it follows that your religion might take a more legalistic approach to religious interpretation than the breakaway sect that’s influenced much of the English speaking worlds conceptions of how people should engage with religion.
That’s awesome. “God, you specifically gave us a list of rules, one of which says we’re not supposed to listen to unilateral commands from the heavens, so you coming down and giving your opinion on this is kinda out of line” and then God’s just like “<checks notes>…You know what? Fair. Point taken, carry on.”
I love that that’s just a part of the religion, and it pretty clearly underlines the “you’re supposed to think about and debate this stuff” part.
Except… that rule is actually an extremely liberal interpretation of the original scripture. “It is not in heaven” refers to Deuteronomy 30:
For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'
But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.
Which is basically a lot of words to say “what I’m asking of you is not impossible”. Rabbi Yehoshua quoted that verse as kind of a wordplay (since Rabbi Eliezer made a voice appear from heaven), and Rabbi Yirmeya twisted that to say “it no longer belongs to God, he can no longer decide”.
BTW - if you read the original text in the Talmud, and ignore Rabbi Yirmeya’s interpretation and Rabbi Natan’s supernatural story about God proclaiming “My children have triumphed over Me” (we can determine that these two are later additions because the Talmud makes sure to give credit to the tannaim that added them - unlike the original tale which is uncredited) you get a whole different story about how Rabbi Eliezer is doing all sorts of “miracles” trying to prove his authority while the rest of the Sanhedrin standing there unimpressed because unlike the unwashed masses this kind of performance usually works on - they know how these magic tricks work, and would very like to get over that part and continue with their halachic discussion.
At any rate, the twisting of the scriptures is very very common in the halacha. The very “rule” that presumably allows them to twist the scriptures is also a twist of the scriptures. Deuteronomy 17 says:
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose.
And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.
And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee.
According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel.
And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
Which basically says, again in so many words (I think God knew his words were going to get twisted, so he took the extra effort to be very very clear and precise. It didn’t work), “if there is a dispute go to these people who have the authority to judge, and act according to what they rule”. Which is pretty much how a judicial system operates. But they took this passage and said “see! it says right there - ‘they shall tell thee, thou shalt do’. This means you have to do e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g we say! No questions asked!”
And to this day, Jewish people would still quote that part to prove that the Talmud’s authority is legitimate while completely ignoring the context it was taken out of.
People are different. Some Hasidic groups (like those easy to see in Manhattan of what I’ve heard) do that and even more stupid things, similar to talismans and such. But Judaism frankly doesn’t even have an idea of schism, so.
The loopholes were pulled throughout history so people don’t remember the old ways after a couple generation and stop asking why things are changing. If the church kept telling people to fast for 40 days they would have lost a lot more believers way sooner.
The church still tells people to fast for 40 days. I’m in Greece right now visiting my partners family and they’ve just ended their 40 day fast. So not sure where you get that from, unless you’re referring to the Western churches, in which case yes, the fast has been abandoned. But in eastern churches all meat, fish, dairy, egg, alcohol, rich/fatty foods and olive oil (depends on the church that one), is banned and followers are expected to spend those days focusing on their faith, attending church and praying. The very religious restrict themselves to one meal a day after sundown, usually a bean soup of sorts or bread and water (my father in law does this). The faithful are also expected to abstain from things like video games, television etc and engage with family, volunteer and do something for nature and people, but that’s not really followed by many.
Technically they should be abstaining from labor as well.
Any pro-labor aspects of Christianity is always ignored, and abandoned whenever an ancient institutional denomination (Catholic or Orthodox for example) loses actual power against state and more importantly, business.
One man wrote: “My wife suffered a stroke five years ago. She is no longer able to stand or walk. She is confined to a wheelchair at all times.” An eruv would allow him to take her to the synagogue on Shabbat, he said.
Exploiting a series of obscure antiquated strictures to convince yourself that you’re going to get a big reward in the afterlife is central to all sorts of religious traditions. Its no different than chasing loopholes while filing your tax return, and then applauding yourself for winning a big rebate check.
In a world run by petty bureaucrats and dogmatic priests, why wouldn’t you believe that God was the most petty and dogmatic of them all?
In some religious traditions, it’s not believed that they’re loopholes, or cheating.
If the written rules are the precise literal words of your deity who can make no errors, then if something is technically allowed it’s allowed on purpose.
The deity wouldn’t make a mistake or try to trick people into following a rule that wasn’t written.
Yahweh says no tending a fire on Saturday. Alright, what is “fire”? Is electricity fire? Is it a prohibited labor? Time to think.
God says no eating creatures of the land or sky. Well, otters aren’t of the land or sky, so fair game.
Allah says no pork unless your life depends on it. Is processed porcine collagen still pork if it’s used in artificial heart valves? What level of chemical transformation is required to remove the “pork-ness”?
The belief that a deity cares about the spirit of the the written rules and not the words is itself a religious belief.
Which, in some religions, means it’s open to debate to figure out exactly what it means. :P
I was wondering that myself, but I’m not one to complain about Internet points.
My theory is people have an unrecognized internalization of the new testament attitude towards a legalistic approach to religion, which is ultimately where the “spirit vs the letter of the law” phrase originates, albeit in the context of “between love and the law, choose love”, not “don’t eat fish because I’m not great with words and forgot to mention them”.
I’m the stories, Jesus is pretty strongly against not only the legalistic approach but also any religious law beyond “I rock, be cool, follow your heart”.
Which adds a bit of irony to all the Christian schisms over minor points of interpretation, including the schisms over this very point I’m making right now.
Also fun: there’s a legalistic debate about the merits of legalistic debate versus perceived intent or purpose in the talmudic tradition going back thousands of years.
Which adds a bit of irony to all the Christian schisms over minor points of interpretation, including the schisms over this very point I’m making right now.
No irony, these were in essence about the very core parts, namely nature of God.
Miaphysites and monophysites believe that human nature and divine nature of Christ are inseparable or one and the same. This poses some problems for both religious and worldly hierarchies.
Then whether there is the trinity or it’s one common entity or something else, and the divine nature of the son. More or less the same.
I mean, I’m not a specialist and I’m simplifying things, but still core Christian beliefs and the philosophy behind schisms one can describe on a few pages. These are not hard to get. It is all about politics in the societies in which the centers of various branches of Christianity existed.
It’s basically that the Roman Church didn’t quite like the idea of having the divine in every human. The divine is much more convenient to be limited to the central hierarchy. Then after the Arab conquest of a lot of the Christian lands it had more relative power and made it canon.
The East-West schism is more nuanced, but mostly was about politics too, and the interpretations more convenient for the Western feudalism and the Byzantine system which was still kinda feudal, but differently.
At the same time Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches (Armenian Catholic, Chaldean, Greek-Catholic) are in many things more similar to, well, the churches they split from, except for accepting the authority of the Pope.
Oh, I get that the schisms are very political and complicated, but I still think there’s a bit of irony in “love God before arguing over details” being met with “but what is God, really?”
It’s not like, hypocritical or anything, just a bit ironic.
I mean, the first phrase kinda contains the answer that God is love. Well, at least for miaphysites it’s a perfectly good description. There is the Nicene creed yadda yadda, but generally Armenian and Coptic priests seem to be fine with such an interpretation.
It’s depressing, not ironic. There’s the song “Wings” by Nautilus Pompilius (Russian rock band popular in the late 90s), this kind of depressing.
As a pretty nonreligious individual, I don’t have much connection to think of it as depressing.
You profess to be less than an expert, but you’re definitely more knowledgeable than I on this topic, so maybe you could help me with a question?
I seem to recall there’s a term for the various sects that eschew a lot of the more complex doctrines in favor of a “return to basics” or individual style, Quakers being the one that comes to mind.
Do you know what that’s called? As a layperson nonbeliever, that particular thread has always seemed to capture the core of it, or at least the “love and kindness” part that appeals to someone who doesn’t need it for a deeper life meaning or purpose.
I’m non-religious in terms of believing in magic and guys on the sky, but I understand what spirituality is and how it makes people different.
I also deeply respect a few writers whose works I’ve read and people I’ve met, influenced by it.
And I respect the fighting spirit. May not always have as much of it as I’d like.
I don’t have much connection to think of it as depressing.
It’s not about connection, it’s about in one case it being perceived as some emotion allowing you to come out against the whole world for what you consider good with your head up, and in another case it turning into some set of sophisticated mystical explanations why you are a slave, and the latter having somehow descended from the former.
I seem to recall there’s a term for the various sects that eschew a lot of the more complex doctrines in favor of a “return to basics” or individual style, Quakers being the one that comes to mind.
Protestant? Reformist?
that particular thread has always seemed to capture the core of it, or at least the “love and kindness” part that appeals to someone who doesn’t need it for a deeper life meaning or purpose.
Well, those include many branches which may not be always in that direction.
That thinking only works if you don’t realize that it’s all in interpretation, its not a loophole persay it’s a series of loopholes you sorta work around and jump through.
Loophole to me means that you found a way to cheat the system.
If you believe your deity is entirely onboard with being a rules lawyer, then finding clever ways to do things while following the rules is just “following the rules”.
If your deity says no firestarting on a Saturday, so you start it on Friday to use Saturday, why would you be in trouble for following the rules?
So if I get some to agree that fire is only flame from wood grown from trees native to Israel, then I can barbecue on Saturday and it’s Kosher.
( The idea being that if rules are allowed to be interpreted, then they can be interpreted into anything. If electricity is fire (many Jewish sects say yes), then my sect can say oxidized propane isn’t fire and also be correct.
Yup, that tracks. As you mentioned, there are disagreements about the exact meaning and consequences of the prohibition already, so if you can find source material to back your argument, you can argue it.
They don’t view it as interpretation, but as closer to a legal argument. There’s the written law, and that’s what matters, the deity won’t judge you based on unwritten laws, because their goal was to write down the criteria that you’ll be judged by and the rules you need to follow, not to judge you based on your ability to infer the intent of the rules based on what they told you. Similar to how, when you go to court in the legal system, you’re judged by the law as written, not by the intent of the congressperson who proposed the law.
The belief that it’s the spirit that matters and not the letter of the law is itself a religious belief derived from early Christian rejection of the legalistic aspects of Judaism. It’s why so many people in this thread have such a “well of course you’re not supposed to debate the semantics of your religion, you’re supposed to know what God meant and do that instead”. Same for when someone “cheats” the legal system to “escape punishment” by “getting off on a technically”, since what they did was supposed to be punishable. Legally, that’s called “following the law”, or “making a valid legal argument”.
Some religions and people just don’t hold that belief, and so “what if an argued position clearly subverts the intent of the rule” just isn’t a compelling negative consequence, it’s just part of what happens with debate.
It’s got no bearing on either of our points, but I believe the Jewish interpretation isn’t that electricity is fire, generally, but that incandescent lightbulbs violate the prohibition on “igniting a fire”, and that many other applications violate prohibitions on things like “lifting”, “doing work”, or “cooking”.
So electricity isn’t the issue, but rather what you do with it, and even if you argue that it’s only fire if it’s Israeli wood, you’d also have to argue that BBQ wasn’t cooking.
Jewish interpretation isn’t that electricity is fire,
Unfortunately that was original the interpretation. It has since been amended into “building a circuit” and/or “doing work” as explanations. Of course neither of those hold up because turning on a water tap or turning a door knob aren’t prohibited.
So there is no basis for following laws. It’s only tradition and tradition can be however you define a word.
BBQ can be declared as not cooking by definition just like turning on a cold water faucet is declared as not work by definition.
I’ll admit that I’m not entirely sure what point you’re arguing anymore. If you think religious law is malleable through argument, then religious law changing after argument or discussion isn’t a problem, it’s just how it works.
Wouldn’t you know, there’s actual debate with citations about faucets and the circumstances In which they’re permitted or not. It’s not “all work” that’s prohibited, but specific categories in certain circumstances. I’m neither a Rabbi, a scholar of talmudic law nor even Jewish so my understanding of the specifics are only about as deep as curiosity has taken me over the years. I don’t think the specifics matter for this discussion.
Yes, there’s nothing actually tangible about any law, religious or otherwise that compells people to follow it beyond cultural momentum. Words lack inherent meaning and it’s only through shared convention that we agree on meaning or order in our society.
I only found german sources (tabloids, blogs and something from a catholic site), but I don’t know how serious they are. Here the link of the Catholic site:
Thanks. The article title “tricks for Lent” points to the non-serious nature of it. Plus, it uses the phrase “According to legend” several times and doesn’t even mention the particular monestaries, nor the specific monks involved. I think it’s just meant to be a humorous jab at legalism.
Typically, if practices get so bad that they have to be forbidden by an administrative authority, then you would have some written document forbidding the practice. Although that would acknowledge it wasn’t legitimate to begin with, it would at least suggest the histriocity of it.
Add comment