(Trying Not To Start A Rant) The Other Side of the Christian/DnD Thing

[Rel]

On a different note -- what do you folks think -- close this now/soon before it gets too negative, or let it go a while longer?

I've not contributed to this thread (I think anything I would say has been said, and said better, by others here) but I've been avidly reading it. My opinion is that it should be left open so long as the discourse remains civil. While I understand and support the reasons behind the general ban on discussion of "real world" religion, I think it would be cool if the thread could run its course without closure.

When we're old and grey, we'll be sitting around the table at the "Gamer's Retirement Home" and somebody will say:

"Remember that time on ENWorld where that religious discussion didn't get locked?"

And somebody else will say:

"Yep. That was a hell of a thing, wasn't it?"

And somebody else will say:

"There's no such thing as 'hell', you idiot!"

And then we'll start throwing dice and hitting each other with crutches and the nurses will wheel us away...

Won't that be nice?

 

[DM_Matt]

It says:

iylu hluy al znfuv <yalk dgbw <yalk urzt-al idc <yalk uybrt-al itmhb wrmvt ytqj-ta

But you'll need the Hebrew font, available here, to read it.

Personally, I think it's pretty clear that the KJV is wrong, and everyone else is right. The "literal" translations, like the NLT and the NASB all say "two kinds of cloth."

Still, if a translator thought they had proof the Hebrews only meant linen and wool, you might expect the metaphorial translations, like the Message Bible, to say so. But even the modern metaphorical translations agree and render it as "two kinds of cloth."

Anyway, it's far from being the most controversial law in Leviticus. There's a good summary of it's contents here.


EDIT: Mingled is a bad word, that only KJV uses. The Hebrew is "kil'ayim," literally "two kinds." Still, you're right. The principle is that you're supposed to keep crops seperate. The rules in Leviticus hate "mingling." It comes up time and time again. For instance, there are lots of statutes about even associating with non-hebrews. Even your oxen aren't to be harnessed with a non-believer's oxen. It's the same principle behind the rule that two different kinds of animals aren't supposed to have sex (like breeding different kinds of cattle, or horses and donkeys, or even people and animals). Most modern people draw a pretty strong distinction between wearing a poly blend shirt and commiting beastiality, but Leviticus does not. In fact, Lev 19:19 is prefaced with God explicitly saying "these are my laws, keep them holy," indicating that these were very important. It's a very interesting window into their culture.

Well, we have different ideas of what is most authoritative. I consider the Mishna (c200CE) and the Talmud (c.500CE), which are, respectively, a compilation of the laws in the five books of Moses as practiced and a commentary thereon to be the most authoritative works regarding how these laws were origionally practiced, and as such what there origional meaning was.

Second, there are not statutes against associating with non-Hebrews in general. In fact, while there is no general principle about shunning those from other cultures, there ARE specific principles about protecting immigrants, strangers, etc. There are only laws about associating with certain tribes (none of which exist as such today) that happened to be enemies of the Israelites at the time.

I also take issue with equating mixing fabric with bestiality. Sexual morality held a separate and higher importance than these other regulations, and played a special role in later covenants. In fact, G-D's giving the land of Canaan to the Israelites and expelling the Canaanites was explicitly related to the sexual practices of the Canaanites (and a few other things, such as human sacrifice), and it was stated that the Israelites would lose that land if they acted as the Canaanites did in that way.

 

[Trainz]

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has the right to never be offended.

That's true.

That said, religious discussion is theoretically forbidden on ENworld. I was just explaining why. You don't like it, take it to the mods.

 

[Hardhead]

Well, we have different ideas of what is most authoritative. I consider the Mishna (c200CE) and the Talmud (c.500CE), which are, respectively, a compilation of the laws in the five books of Moses as practiced and a commentary thereon to be the most authoritative works regarding how these laws were origionally practiced, and as such what there origional meaning was.

My general rule is older=more authoritative.

Second, there are not statutes against associating with non-Hebrews in general. In fact, while there is no general principle about shunning those from other cultures, there ARE specific principles about protecting immigrants, strangers, etc. There are only laws about associating with certain tribes (none of which exist as such today) that happened to be enemies of the Israelites at the time.

Yes, there are several passages that offer kind advice about strangers and imigrants. But, I beleive, the assumption is that they're fellow Hebews. I admit this is debatable, however.

And while there are no laws specifically forbiding you to associate with non-Hebrews, there are lengthy cleansing, sometimes sacrificial, hoops you have to jump through if you associate unclean people (or even have your animals associate with anothers' animals), which considering what Leviticus says makes you unclean, is going to be anyone that isn't also a Hebrew.

I also take issue with equating mixing fabric with bestiality. Sexual morality held a separate and higher importance than these other regulations, and played a special role in later covenants.

While this is true of later jews (who were subject of the later covenants), and certainly true of us, the picture Leviticus paints is not of this nature.

Broadly speaking, the laws of Leviticus are of two different types: moral sins and ritual sins. Ritual sins are stuff like you can't eat shellfish, or wear blended cloth clothing. Don't plant two types of plant in the same field, and midgets aren't allowed to come before an alter to God.

Moral sins are stuff like, "don't kill people." Often, you see words like "abomination" or "detestable" used to describe them in most bibles.

But the catch is, the word they translate as "abomination" and "detestable" is often to'ebah, which means, literally, "ritually unclean." It's the same word used to describe the "ritual sins." If the author would have wanted to describe moral sin, he'd have used the word "zimah." (Which *is* used in some places, but not when refering to sexual acts).

In the world of Leviticus, a lot of what we today see as moral sins were ritual sins. Beastiality wasn't a moral sin (a zimah) like murder was. It was a ritual sin (a to'ebah) like eating a lobster.

EDIT EDIT: This is not to say that they were "lesser" sins, though. You could fix some a moral sins with animal sacrifice, but the punishment for a ritual sin was sometimes death.

EDIT: I just thought, this post may step over the "no religion" line. If so, mods, feel free to delete it. I won't mind.

 

[Kai Lord]

There are a lot of Latter-Day Saints that play Roleplaying Games. If anyone has a right to denounce any game as satanic, it's us. Think of it this way, if LDS christians who work very hard to be Christian in thought, word, and deed play D&D, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the game.

"Let God be true, and every man a liar." Romans 3:4.

Mormons don't speak for the Bible, the Bible speaks for the Bible.

"Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Galatians 1:7,8. (Emphasis mine)

EDIT: Got nothing against ya bro, but if LDS members "worked very hard to be Christian," then they'd preach only the truth of the Bible.

 

[Etan Moonstar]

Hey Kai, this thread has been pretty well handled and interesting so far. Please do us all a favor and try not to get it locked by Bible bashing, OK? Thanks!

 

[Kai Lord]

Hey Kai, this thread has been pretty well handled and interesting so far. Please do us all a favor and try not to get it locked by Bible bashing, OK? Thanks!

I quoted the Bible, as has been done several times in the thread. I certainly didn't bash it.

 

[Hardhead]

I believe Kai was taking exception to what Sir Elton said about "If anyone has a right to denounce any game as satanic, it's us. Think of it this way, if LDS christians who work very hard to be Christian in thought, word, and deed play D&D, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the game." An implication you could pick up being, of course, that Mormons were more morally authoritative than others. I kind of winced when I read that myself, and hoped no one would bring it back up.

EDIT: In the interests of keeping this thread open, I propose that we don't talk about it again.

 

[Kai Lord]

I believe Kai was taking exception to what Sir Elton said about "If anyone has a right to denounce any game as satanic, it's us. Think of it this way, if LDS christians who work very hard to be Christian in thought, word, and deed play D&D, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the game." An implication you could pick up being, of course, that Mormons were more morally authoritative than other Chrisitans.

Of greater note is the phrase "LDS Christian," an oxymoron since the Book of Mormon is not a book of the Bible. I'm not saying anyone can't believe whatever they choose to believe, but I don't think something should be called Christianity when it simply isn't.

 

[Hardhead]

Kai, that's a whole nother issue that's been bandied about a zillion times on a zillion message boards. I believe, if we have any hope of keeping this thread open, that you need to edit that last post. I'll compromise with you and edit the part of mine that you pointed out. Deal?