http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/152053
Now, as you may gather, I am leftist some ways, and
rightist other ways. This is because I actually read The
Bible, not just the excerpts to support an agenda. The
latter is how I was for some years drawn away from God
into a political mindframe, been there, done that, repented
of it.
In the article is this:
"The Pew 2006 survey found that nearly one-third of Americans
said they felt the law of the Bible should outweigh citizen
preferences in the formation of civil law."
http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Many-Americans-Uneasy-with-Mix-of-Religion-and-Politics.aspx#2
Now I for one would agree with this, except for one thing.
Just how would these laws be understood by the proposed law
writers? how would they be interpreted and applied?
Given the kind of Biblical exegesis some of the Christian Reconstruction,
and more extreme, and Dominionist heretics, and even Christian Identity
crews make use of, to support things that are barely tolerated and in
some cases prohibited by The Bible, I am not too sure that I want people
who want Bible Law running things in charge.
And I am not sure that they realize, that the person standing next to
them shoulder to shoulder in agreement with them on this, may have a
diametrically opposed idea of what that law and its application should be.
First, you have to distinguish between things that were a special performance
part of the human side of God's covenant with Israel, and those things that
were laws that expressed His righteousness in general.
Within that latter category, you will find some flexibility, something not
understood by Bible lawyers, or by those who exploit these to argue that
there is contradiction within The Bible.
A good example would be prohibition on going up to God's altar by steps,
so that their nakedness under their robes (both sexes wore dresses back
then, the only difference was cut and style), supplanted by the order to
wear breeches which then allowed steps to be used.
In some cases you have a mix of specifics and evidence code thrown
in one piece, in others there are statements that stand alone, absolutes,
and others that are dependent on circumstance, where the goal is stated,
and in that circumstance the goal is furthered best by that law. But in
another context, that goal might not be helped, perhaps even hindered,
so of course, to accomplish that goal, you are going to have to take a
different tack.
When you start with Genesis chapters 2 and 3, and move on, you get
some bigger picture. And certain things that are called abomination,
like eating certain animals, are rescinded in Christ, as per the vision to
Peter, and what Christ taught Paul in the wilderness (see Acts and
Galatians respectively), while other things called abomination, like
human sacrifice of infants and sacrificing to false gods and homosexual
acts (regardless of the role played) and prostitution are clearly still
abomination, as per Paul, and always were abomination, as per Genesis.
it is a bit more complex than opening the state penal code to see what
it has to say on something.
The proposed Jubilee laws some want, which would cancel the remains
of unpaid debts every 50 years, are a good idea as long as understood
as following God's desire for mercy and prevention of debt slavery.
There was a similar law for every 7 years, which is probably the reason
why bankruptcy is generally allowed only once every 7 years. This
was an automatic debt forgiveness and slave release.
Justina
No comments:
Post a Comment