You views are well taken. I do have one problem though. Would you allow a
person with a disease into your work place? Even in schools they send people
home when they are sick. So why would one allow a sick person in church to
spread the disease in God's house and to his people. No one said they
couldn't go when they were well. Common sense is harder to find than it
appears.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Shuan Rose
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 11:00 AM
To: Don Perrett
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: RE: Some Questions for Kamilla
Sorry, Dan. It was meant to be a " bit of Fun". Ah, well,
everyone's sense
of humor is different. More seriously , you touch on the point of the
applicability of OT law to our Christian life today. According to Paul,
Christ is the end of the law. The law still remains as a guide and a pointer
to what is sinful. But it is no longer authoritative. According to Paul,
there is only one commandment that is authoritative as to conduct towards
fellow human beings-love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:8 et seq).
Everything you do, should be in the light of that commandment.
As to the OT law, it was a good model for people of that time. There is much
that remains good in it. But lets face it, many of those regulations are as
incomprehensible to us as our tax code would be to the ancient Hebrews. You
may be correct about the past health benefits of some of the food
regulations. But they are pretty much irrelevant to us today. ( For the
record, I don't even like shellfish. But I'll pig out on pork.)
Most importantly, I totally reject the view that the sick or the handicapped
should not have a chance to go to the altar or otherwise participate in
worship. that to me is completely contrary to the love commandment. I find
it arrogant that anyone would bar a sick person from going to the altar, if
that would bring them comfort. If you don't see it that way, then I'll pray
for you.
Loving you in the Lord,
Shuan
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Perrett [mailto:donperrett@genesisproclaimed.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:40 AM
To: Shuan Rose
Cc: Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: RE: Some Questions for Kamilla
To be honest I do not wish to get back into this debate. I find it
fruitless. I initially did so but intended only to get a clear understanding
of JB's position. But as I read this one, I find it disheartening. I realize
that many still feel that the OT does not apply to people today. Some would
say that the laws you cite below are intended for the people of the time.
Some would say that it was rescinded by Christ. The laws of the OT are not
necessarily outdated. Even Christ admitted that. Would one say that murder
is no longer a sin because Christ forgives? Let me start with the various
remarks below. Sacrificing animals was part of a covenant and since Christ
is the final sacrifice it is no longer required. This was a definite and
clear change, few question it. Slavery is not condemned by the bible. The
problem is that we see slavery as the type from Egypt or more recent in our
own country. The type of slavery allowed by God is servancy. Slaves were not
supposed to be mistreated and in fact many did better than if they were so
called "free". This is not needed today because we have social programs to
help those with little or no income. This does not mean that it is still
wrong in God's eyes. Working on the Sabbath is a debatable issue. Some say
it is required to rest others don't. I don't think this was a good example,
since you were obviously trying to point out old laws that don't apply. On
shellfish, are you not aware of the health benefits of eating fish with
scales? Are you also aware that those without, including shellfish, are high
in cholesterol? I find it amazing that a culture that had no medical
science, as we do today, was able to determine that there were health risks
such as this. Just as then, it is still bad for you. Glasses may still be
unclean. The bible does not say that handicapped people cannot go to church,
it says that they cannot approach the altar. It also allows them to take
communion. The reasoning is that someone sick or ill, even crippled is
unclean. Many diseases can cause loss of sight, paralysis, etc. Because of
this they are unclean. Today we know the causes of most ailments and know
whether the person is clean or not. I would say that a person who is
presently sick should not go to the altar, but then I believe in the OT. God
never said that someone that cuts his hair should die. The gloves contain no
blood and have been clean. Again, health comes in to play. Some crops are
still not compatible even today. In fact the recent genetic engineering of
crops will come back to haunt us later. As with most things our arrogance
will be punished. Most farmers will plant different crops on their land, but
who will mix match them. usually they are separated within the field. One
does not plant one tomato then a grape then a tomato etc. They plant one
field of tomatoes then a field of grapes etc. The point is that unless we
know what the outcome in nature will be, we should not be playing with
genetics or manipulating crops. But I try to be humble others may not be. I
understand your points and sarcasm, but again one must be humble and believe
in His grace. Some laws may seem outdated but even at the time of Christ
some punishments were harsher than God intended. Even when death was a
punishment it does not mean that one was supposed to be put to death. In
some areas it is clear, especially when it gives the means of death. In
others it is meant to convey the idea that certain acts would bring death,
short life. Still others were just detestable, no death required, but still
unhealthy. We may forgive now and not put to death because Christ died for
our sins, but they are still sins. Those detestable are still so although
health risks may have been reduced by science and hygiene techniques. But if
you feel that eating shellfish for example is ok, then please feel free to
eat several a day and nothing else. I'll pray that you don't fie of heart
disease. But until then please lower the arrogance level of the discussion.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Shuan Rose
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 5:12 PM
To: anamchara7@juno.com
Cc: Asa
Subject: Some Questions for Kamilla
T This is from the website, Reluctant Journey. Maybe Kamilla can answer
these qustions!
A bit of serious fun that I received not so long ago!
The following was an open letter which was posted on the internet to a
radio/tv personality, who had converted to Judaism, and who dispensed
'Biblical' advice and who made very unflattering comments about homosexuals,
....
"Dear .......
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws
and how best to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
d) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him? Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
e) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
Abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?
f) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some room for variation here?
g) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
should they die?
h) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean. May I still play football if it means wearing pigskin gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread. (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Shuan Rose, Attorney at Law
2632 N Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21218
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 16 2002 - 15:32:30 EDT