[throwitback]

Loosely speaking, God/"Moses" put a bunch of rules in play for the early Israelites. Then Jesus came around and said "it's all about love." Then Paul clarified Jesus with more specific directions. So Paul > Jesus > Moses, mostly because of chronology.

Let's take gay people as an example. Moses said no, Jesus said it's all about love, and Paul said no to gay people. So even though Jesus is always right, in practice he was usually pretty vague, so Paul ends up with the overrule.

*Side note: some people believe that Paul and/or Moses were only referring to gay people in the context of pagan ritual sex, and that Jesus's "love" should take priority. I'd believe Moses was about pagan sex and Paul is non-canon if I were still Christian. This shows that there's plenty of room for interpretation. The previous paragraphs are simply the evangelical mainstream interpretation.

Edit: A cynical me would also say that interpretation depends on agenda.

[notdonspaulding]

    > Let's take gay people as an example. 
    > Moses said no, Jesus said it's all about love,
    > and Paul said no to gay people...

It is a misconception of Jesus' teachings to say that he invalidated the Mosaic law with a message of "it's all about love". Notice in the Sermon on the Mount for example how he is constantly going one level more conservative than the Mosaic law would allow, condemning not just immoral actions but immoral thoughts as well!

Here on the issue of homosexuality you believe Moses, Jesus and Paul say 3 different things. And yet Jesus clearly states that he didn't come to change the Mosaic law in any way!

https://www.bible.com/bible/59/mat.5:17-20

Martin Luther took that last verse to mean that Jesus is not merely giving a list of do's and don'ts, but rather setting an impossibly high standard for anyone but God to meet. Regardless, you have to either understand Jesus to mean that he's not contradicting Moses, or take Jesus to be a liar. There aren't many reasonable options in between.

[throwitback]

I hope you don't wear any cotton/polyester blends.

> Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. (Deut 22:11, KJV)

Most Christians I've known believe that some combination of Matt 15:11 (Jesus) and Acts 10 (Paul) mean that while the morality expoused in the original Law is forever relevant, the practical concerns (what to eat, what clothing to wear, how to handle menstruation) and the ritual concerns (sacrifice, temple practices) are no longer relevant.

So Jesus takes morality to 11, but not the other things. And according to Jesus, morality == love.

All this to say: I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation. I'm not ignorant of the spectrum of Christian doctrine, and I feel like I'm mostly doing it justice while keeping it simple.

[_urga]

> "I hope you don't wear any cotton/polyester blends."

That's an odd way to answer someone who's actually given you a thoughtful reply.

[jhawk28]

He was referring to the command in the Old Testament that bans wearing fabric blends. One thing to remember is that Jesus didn't nullify the law, he fulfilled the law. There were two types of rules in the Old Testament, ethical and lifestyle. There are a few instances in the New Testament where lifestyle rules are explicitly ignored without any condemnation for the actions (the opposite instead). The bleeding woman touching Jesus, Peter being told to eat unclean animals (meaning go talk to the Gentiles), and Paul telling the Galatians that the Gentiles do NOT need to be circumcised to be saved.

If one loves God and their neighbor, all the ethical law will be followed. One interesting loophole that Jesus removed was to love one another as He loved them (John 13:34) which is different than "Love your neighbor as yourself".

[Stratoscope]

> I hope you don't wear any cotton/polyester blends.

Polyester? A sacrilege!

No, I wear a California uniform. 100% cotton Aloha shirt, 100% cotton pants, long or short depending on the season. (Mostly short.) Birkenstock Arizonas (soft footbed only!), with or without socks.

Can't vouch for the underwear, though. I hope it's mostly cotton, but what are those stretchy bands made of?

[Someone]

But for Catholics, the pope can override ^W interpret what all those long dead people said, (mostly) because of chronology.

For Protestants, Luther came along and more or less said "make up your own mind", so everybody can make their own interpretation.

So, yes interpretation at the very least depends on where one wants to put the accents.

[mattlutze]

Luther was still mostly about the Catholic church's canon. His opposition was mostly to the business and political practices of the Church. Or, in other words, against the sale of indulgences for absolution of purgatory-condemning sanctions against living and dead parishioners.

In the beginnings of the 95 Theses he actually puts a favorable light on the Pope, in my brief re-reading [1].

Luther's protestants still held to the catacism(sp?), sacraments, transmutation of the hosts, etc. As far as I've ever understood it.

[1]: http://www.luther.de/en/95thesen.html

[jpt4]

The Lutheran Catechism differs from the Catholic on several points of theology, particularly the Lutheran orthogonality of salvation and sanctification [0], which are joint pursuits in Roman Catholicism. Regarding the nature of the hosts, Roman Catholics argue transubstantiation [1], and Lutherans speak "mu" to the question [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the...

[mattlutze]

I think sola fide is the concept I ham-fistedly attempted to express with the opposition to the business side of the Catholic church, insofar as it extended to mortals (the Pope included) declaring the sins of and absolving the sins of the people and their dead relatives, yeah? It seemed to all draw from points 10-20ish in the declaration.

And on the transubstantiation vs, dual-state can we call it, of the eucharist... my denomination considered it all symbolic, so I'd always really considered them the same thing (by which I mean, saying "it's just his body" vs "it's both his body and bread" were still "it's his body).

I'm not sure how foundational that distinction was when the schism occurred. Do you know by chance?

[jpt4]

> my denomination considered it all symbolic,

Is yours a Reformed church? The anti-institutional fervor of the later (post-Luther) Protestants led to many such purely mundane interpretations of the host, which Luther vigorously denied [0].

> I'm not sure how foundational that distinction was when > the schism occurred. Do you know by chance?

Though I do not know the relative impetus imparted to the Reformation by differences in belief about the nature of the hosts in the eucharist, it seems to have been a deeper divide within Protestantism than between P and the RC [1]. Charitably, Luther accorded the question of the metaphysical connection between bread and wine, body and blood as axiomatically resolved by accepting the Word of their identical existence as a matter of belief, independent of argumentative investigation (i.e., he "unasked" the question, or said "mu" [2]). Uncharitably, he dodged by declaring the answer uninteresting or irrelevant to Christian faith.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacrament_of_the_Body_and_...

[1] http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/06/martin-luther-refutes...

Specifically: "Before I [Luther] would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope."

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29#.22Unasking....

[_urga]

> "Loosely speaking"

I would encourage you to read Jesus more closely, for example, the Sermon on the Mount:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5

If you are sincerely interested in understanding things like the ceremonial law, civil law, moral law, Old Covenant, New Covenant, then I can point you to some excellent study guides and sermons.

[throwitback]

> I would encourage you to read Jesus more closely

I'm just trying to hit the high points for a silly internet discussion.

> If you are sincerely interested in understanding things like the ceremonial law, civil law, moral law, Old Covenant, New Covenant, then I can point you to some excellent study guides and sermons.

Been there. I found the Skeptic's Annotated Bible was more convincing than, say, Grudem's Systematic Theology, or any of the other reading from seminary.

[Natsu]

With respect to homosexuality, as far as I'm aware, all of the verses that describe a punishment for it say that the person who partakes of it will end up on a sickbed. Given the times, it probably carried a high risk of STIs. Proverbs has similar warnings with respect to men who lose their vigor to prostitutes, or as a result of fornication.

[notdonspaulding]

The practical consequences of homosexuality and prostitution (STIs and reduced vigor) are of much less concern to Jesus and Paul (and other Biblical figures) than the immediate problem of ignoring God's design and intentions for sex.

Here's a quick list of passages dealing with sexual immorality:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/sexual_immorality

Notice the theme where the immoral person does not get to inherit the kingdom of God. That's a way-out-in-the-future concept, not any kind of concern for the physical body of the immoral person.

Which isn't to say there aren't practical benefits to Biblical sexuality. Certainly your chance of getting an STI is dramatically reduced (eliminated?) by remaining faithful to your spouse in marriage. Abstinence for the unmarried has the same obvious benefits. Heterosexuality is clearly the easiest way to procreate, and the inherent differences between men and women gives children a broader experience of physical, mental, emotional interaction with the world (seeing how mom and dad handle the same situation in gender-unique ways, for instance).

But again, all of that is the secondary concern. The primary concern of all sin is the immediate effect it has on the spiritual condition of a man. The preeminent theme throughout the Old Testament and New is that God is Holy. He takes his holiness seriously. Man has sinned. God judges all sins. There is one way back to God, and that's by taking advantage of the path He made back to Himself, via his son, Jesus.

[oldmanjay]

so given that the biblical command to suppress and channel sexuality is in direct conflict with modern observation that sexual expression is necessary to be spiritually healthy, do you still find the bible compelling?

[notdonspaulding]

    > "the biblical command to suppress and channel sexuality"

You're paraphrasing in a place where it's much more productive to be specific in what the Bible claims.

    > "sexual expression is necessary to be spiritually healthy"

Again, source? I'm not sure I've heard this idea coming from any popular figures. In fact, the impression I get from modern mainstream observations is that spiritual health is a non-concern for most people.

If you didn't intend to make a claim about spiritual health, and instead mean the modern idea that "I should pursue whatever sexual impulses I have", then I would further argue that we haven't walked far enough along the arc of history to see the repercussions of that play out.

    > do you still find the bible compelling?

Certainly. The Bible's position on sexuality is very comprehensive, without being completely descriptive. I'm just as wary of the "modern" (Aristotlean) idea that everything is good in moderation as I am of anyone attempting to limit Christian sexuality to the Victorian ideas represented in the article. The Bible cuts a line between the two that is both more relevant across centuries, and less concerned with creating a monoculture in marital relationships.

[kitd]

  > Edit: A cynical me would also say that interpretation depends on agenda.

Replace 'agenda' with 'cognitive bias' and you have the entirety of human thought.