/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Bump.

Don't ignore this thread.

>>4715

You don't tell me what to do, fucker. I'll cut your tongue.

>>4726

>I'll cut your tongue.

You'd make a lot of people happy.

>>4715

Also, I personally ain't ignoring this, I just can't answer the main question. Sorry.

>>4741

All right. No problem.

>>4320

>So Moses defines certain laws based on the sort of people he leads; in other words, the law is relative to the people in certain cases.

Laws are relative to the people they are meant for, yes.

Morality in itself is absolute though.

>Hardness of heart does suggest that marriage back then was of a different nature, not necessarily romantic. In fact, marriage as we know it has only become a romantic thing recently; before that, it was much more pragmatic, business-like, intended to create babies first and foremost. Then it became romantic, and that means sexual. Marriage is now tax-deductible sex, basically, except for those countries where being married and having your spouse work as well makes you pay more taxes than if you weren't married at all.

Romantic marriage is a recent phenomenon, but this does in no way mean that spouses did not love each other in the past.

>>5575

>Laws are relative to the people they are meant for, yes.

>Morality in itself is absolute though.

I don't know that these two statements can be reconciled. Unless, somehow, the laws and the morality could always be in perfect harmony while still somehow catering to the idiosyncrasies of a people.

Could you elaborate?

>>5576

>Unless, somehow, the laws and the morality could always be in perfect harmony

I do not think that a perfect world is humanly possible.

Humanity expresses itself through society and society is a product of its time.

There always need to be laws that are reflecting the societal circumstances, in the United Kingdom the extraordinary position of the Royal family and Nobility.

This would have been unnecessary in, let's say 1900s US for instance.

It is the same way as we Christians do not need to follow levitical law anymore.

We accept that it was perfect for ancient Israel, but because we are not ancient Israel but Modern Israel the law would not serve us well.

>>5593

>Humanity expresses itself through society and society is a product of its time.

I don't know discipulus, this feels too relativistic. I mean, throughout the history of the entire earth there's only been, what, like 4 sets of rules for people. The simple ones for Adam and Eve, then after that we have 2 sets of law: one for the Hebrews (Mosaic Law) and another for the gentiles. And now there's, well, 2 more once again. One for gentiles and one for Latter-Day Saints.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is I don't think the Laws of God bend so specifically to each and every culture and time. Rather, the culture will try to bend God's Law to their whim like we see in the world today, and if God so chooses to make a *special* covenant with with a specific people (which doesn't happen very often at all), then it will of course be curtailed and "hand-made" for their needs.

>>5596

>I don't know discipulus, this feels too relativistic.

It is the only explanation I have for not following the old law.

If I would regard it as an absolute I would have to live by it letter for letter, keep the sabbath etc.

And I think that would be rather stupid from my part.

Even if we disregard time, I do not think that some tribal society and modern France need the same set of rules.

They have different needs and therefore different rules, different people make up the society and so on.

>>5599

Well, you don't have to abide by it but its because it was never meant for you, first of all, so even in the time of the Hebrews you'd probably be worshiping trees and the wolf, and be judged by the universal gentile standard. But Jesus Christ has made it so that not even the Hebrews or anyone else who has a mind to follow God has to follow Mosaic law.

>Even if we disregard time, I do not think that some tribal society and modern France need the same set of rules.

>They have different needs and therefore different rules, different people make up the society and so on.

If you're talking about secular rules then yes I'd agree because the rules come from them. Different peoples will make different rules. Its different with the Laws of God though because they all come from the same source and can see past cultural and racial differences into the true character of the human species in a way only God can.

>>5604

>If you're talking about secular rules then yes I'd agree because the rules come from them

Of course. Divine law is universal and above human influence.

I agree with you then.