The Lord's name in vain

[Partizan]

The way I had been taught in Sunday school (I grew up Lutheran in Germany) had a completely different focus of that commandment. Our ministers interpreted this that claiming to do things "in God's name" (for instance starting a "holy" war, or forcing others to adhere to your rules, or invoking God to justify some action), is violating the commandment because it is invoking God's name in vain. Cursing was never mentioned and is not regarded that big a deal, even in my congregation.

 

:iagree:

 

I would throw in a lot of Christian phrases and lingo as breaking this commandment too. "God told me to..." "The Lord is leading me to..." "The Holy Spirit directed us to..." If you do something or decide something and then stamp God's name of approval on it in order to make it spiritual and above questioning, this breaks the commandment more than an OMG.

[nd293]

So here's the specific question: If you say OMG (and other variations) and you are a Bible-reading/believing Christian, does it not violate the commandment "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" commandment? If not, what would? Just curious.

 

I am neither Bible-reading not Christian and I think it is in extremely poor taste to say OMG etc. It is disrespectful to people of faith, and the decision to be disrespectful to anyone reflects badly on the person acting in this way.

 

I am less usre about the use of positive religious phrases - I wonder if adopting them when you are actually not a believer is disrespectful to believers or not. Certain phrases (Inshallah and Masha'Allah, for instance) are frequently used by Arabic speakers in everyday speech (even when speaking English) and it is hard not adopt them hearing them all the time.

[Heidi]

It still violates it. When we hear OMG our pastor told us to say "Blessed be His holy name." Our children now say it too. It's awkward the first few times, but you'd be surprised at the reaction from people, mostly positive. Friends have stopped saying it after hearing us respond that way a few times.

 

I think that is a great idea, but.... I don't know if I can say it w/o giggling. :lol:

 

If I said it, I would have to say it while the other person was still talking because they usually say OMG in the middle of their sentence.

 

 

"OMG, did you hear that so and so did blah blah and.."

"And blessed be His Holy name!" (maybe hands raised to the sky for effect)

"and then she was like.... uh..what did you say?"

 

Nope, I don't think I could pull that off (I'm very reserved IRL), but I'll think about it every time now. :001_smile:

[katilac]

Well, we are Jehovah's Witnesses (anyone else on this board??),

 

There's definitely at least one active JW poster, but I'm blanking on who it is.

[unsinkable]

This is my personal experience based on people in non-internet life.

 

The people who get most up in arms about this (ie turn purple if they hear God! OMG! Jesus! etc) like pointing out the faults of everyone but themselves. It is as if it is the easiest sin the "catch" someone doing and they like to catch people doing it so they feel superior.

[Greta]

Possibly a bit of a tangent, but my father at one point told us that we should never say "Bless you" to someone who sneezes. The reason he gave was that it is a shortened form of "God bless you" and, since you could never be totally sure the other person was *really* a *true* Christian, it was blasphemy---you were in effect risking ordering or requiring God to bless someone he could not bless (since he can only, by his own will, bless Christians). Was this just my dad's odd interpretation (entirely possible), or has anyone else come across this teaching? If so, where?

 

When I was growing up, I was also taught not to say "bless you", but for a different reason. I think it was something like . . . the custom dated back to a belief that the sneeze was caused by a demon leaving the body? And since we don't believe that any more, we don't say it. As an adult, I've chosen to say it. It's just the polite thing to do now, however the custom may have originated.

 

And like others have said, I disagree (strongly!) with the notion that God blesses only Christians. God was active in my life before I came to know Him. In fact, I can't imagine how I could have come to know Him if He had not been. :confused:

[KarenNC]

When I was growing up, I was also taught not to say "bless you", but for a different reason. I think it was something like . . . the custom dated back to a belief that the sneeze was caused by a demon leaving the body? And since we don't believe that any more, we don't say it. As an adult, I've chosen to say it. It's just the polite thing to do now, however the custom may have originated.

 

And like others have said, I disagree (strongly!) with the notion that God blesses only Christians. God was active in my life before I came to know Him. In fact, I can't imagine how I could have come to know Him if He had not been. :confused:

 

As I said, it's probably my dad's own odd interpretation---it wouldn't be the only one;). I would guess it is mixed up with predestination, etc.

[nicholas82]

Our family rule of thumb is....if you're not talking to God, or talking about Him, then we don't need to mis-use his name. I feel it's like taking his name in vain when we just loosely throw it around. Good luck:)

 

Rachel

[Joanne]

This is my personal experience based on people in non-internet life.

 

The people who get most up in arms about this (ie turn purple if they hear God! OMG! Jesus! etc) like pointing out the faults of everyone but themselves. It is as if it is the easiest sin the "catch" someone doing and they like to catch people doing it so they feel superior.

 

So here's the specific question: If you say OMG (and other variations) and you are a Bible-reading/believing Christian, does it not violate the commandment "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" commandment? If not, what would? Just curious.

__________________

 

I am a bible reading/believing Christian (by my standards ;)). OMG was never explained to me to be an issue. I never believed or accepted that it was.

 

I hear the respect in some of the posts that inspire the anti OMG sentiment. But I do think that some of the people (in general, not just here) bring too much energy and assumption to people who are comfortable saying it.

 

I don't like OMG when it's used repeatedly, similar to the words "like" or "you know". That's a vocabulary and public speaking arrogance on my part. ;)

 

I completely understand someone coming home to a new house (a la extreme home makeover) and saying OMG. *shrug*

 

When I say it (which is probably not often), I don't intend to insult/disrespect God. I don't believe it violates the SPIRIT of the law at all. I find much of the intensity of this topic to be oppressive and over the top.

 

My Jesus came so that I can have life more abundantly and wear his love like a lose, familiar garment.

[mommymilkies]

I was raised Jewish, so I don't count, but I just don't see why it would be a problem. I don't even see it as a curse, but more a proclamation of something where you call on God/G-d/spirit/whatever. Yes, I say it all the time, too. Not to be rude to Christians, by any means. At the very least, God is not something one religion owns. ;)

[TXMomof4]

I was raised Jewish, so I don't count, but I just don't see why it would be a problem. I don't even see it as a curse, but more a proclamation of something where you call on God/G-d/spirit/whatever. Yes, I say it all the time, too. Not to be rude to Christians, by any means. At the very least, God is not something one religion owns. ;)

 

I would think you'd count plenty! The ten commandments were given to the Jews, right?

 

I don't like OMG - I think it's just something people say without thinking of what their saying. GD is the same way - think about what that means "the GD car just cut me off" Really, the car is d***ed?

 

I encourage my kids to think up better exclamation. Good gravy! Good heavens to mergatroids! Surely we can come up with something to express surprise, joy, irritation a little better?

[serendipitous journey]

We are not Christian -- we are not religious people -- but I do not allow my son to speak G**'s name disrespectfully, because it is extremely offensive to many people and there is no justification for casually giving such personal offense; and also because I believe that G** is very important, even if I'm not sure G** exists :). But his paternal grandmother does use the Lord's name this way. She's a Jewish Holocaust survivor; so I am NOT going to correct her on this! I've just explained to my little one that Oma has her own deal worked out with G**, but DS has to follow mama's rules for the time being ...

Edited May 20, 2011 by serendipitous journey

[Tutor]

We try not to be flippant with language and try to teach our children to regard language the same way, so we rarely use OMG as an exclamation but when we do it is a prayer we are shouting from the mountaintop. :) We also keep the Lord's Day as we understand it should be kept (corporate worship, works of hospitality and mercy, and breaking from daily labors), but we understand that others may not interpret and practice the same way.

[ejadragna]

i remind my children whenever i hear them

"slip" and say omg. oh my gosh and oh my goodness are acceptable alternatives in our home. so needless to say i still correct my kids and stress the importance of refraining our speech even if noone else does. i also will tell any neighbors or visitors when i hear them say it im my presence. i will ask them to please say oh my gosh or oh my goodness. thats easy with children, i musr admit i will let it slide with most adults, like the grandparents, but will make sure i stress oh my goodness, when it is called for...

[cathmom]

Possibly a bit of a tangent, but my father at one point told us that we should never say "Bless you" to someone who sneezes. The reason he gave was that it is a shortened form of "God bless you" and, since you could never be totally sure the other person was *really* a *true* Christian, it was blasphemy---you were in effect risking ordering or requiring God to bless someone he could not bless (since he can only, by his own will, bless Christians). Was this just my dad's odd interpretation (entirely possible), or has anyone else come across this teaching? If so, where?

 

I went the other way with this. :D I trained myself to stop saying "Bless you" like it was me blessing them, and instead I say, "God bless you."

 

The people who get most up in arms about this (ie turn purple if they hear God! OMG! Jesus! etc) like pointing out the faults of everyone but themselves. It is as if it is the easiest sin the "catch" someone doing and they like to catch people doing it so they feel superior.

 

I have never once said anything to anyone about this outside my family. If I were chatting with you and you said it, I would not correct you or judge you or say anything about it. Dh and I train our children not to say these things because that is our job as parents. We would not presume to tell anyone else what to say.

 

 

I completely understand someone coming home to a new house (a la extreme home makeover) and saying OMG. *shrug*

 

 

 

Yes, I understand too. Once, possibly even twice. But when I used to watch EMHE, it was repeated non-stop for at least 5 minutes, like no one could think of anything else to say. I couldn't take it - I stopped watching. But it's not like I'm conducting an anti-EMHE campaign called, "Stop the Blasphemy!" :lol:

 

I watch a lot of HGTV and people can think of all sorts of things to say besides that: "Wow!" "This is incredible!" "I can't believe this!" "Is this our house?" etc.

[asta]

Understood, but the Lord's name is not "God", is it?

 

Exactly.

 

And who is choosing which names to be offended by as well? Is God first on the list or is Allah? How about Yaweh? Or let's go for the trinity concept and ban father, son and holy spirit. Then we can go for christ, which isn't even a name - it's a title (ever hear the exclamation 'Christ on a cracker'? - no, probably not in HS circles...).

 

The point is, we're humans. Just as we paint pictures to make sense of the divine (and anything beyond our capacity to understand) so do we assign names. Does anyone here HONESTLY believe the creator of the universe chatted up Moses in ENGLISH?

 

In the end, we all live our respective faiths in the manner most comfortable and comforting to ourselves; but arguing over the name of something bigger than space and time seems rather a waste of time.

 

A

[Parrothead]

Taking the Lord's name in vain *includes* OMG. I find it annoying when other Christians do it, but understand why non-Christian's say it.

I don't think it is something the Christians have only to themselves. It was originally a Jewish commandment.

[Parrothead]

:iagree:

 

I would throw in a lot of Christian phrases and lingo as breaking this commandment too. "God told me to..." "The Lord is leading me to..." "The Holy Spirit directed us to..." If you do something or decide something and then stamp God's name of approval on it in order to make it spiritual and above questioning, this breaks the commandment more than an OMG.

:iagree:This is something that bugs me almost as much as the oh, my....

[unsinkable]

This is my personal experience based on people in non-internet life.

 

The people who get most up in arms about this (ie turn purple if they hear God! OMG! Jesus! etc) like pointing out the faults of everyone but themselves. It is as if it is the easiest sin the "catch" someone doing and they like to catch people doing it so they feel superior.

 

I went the other way with this. :D I trained myself to stop saying "Bless you" like it was me blessing them, and instead I say, "God bless you."

 

 

 

I have never once said anything to anyone about this outside my family. If I were chatting with you and you said it, I would not correct you or judge you or say anything about it. Dh and I train our children not to say these things because that is our job as parents. We would not presume to tell anyone else what to say.

 

 

Yes, I understand too. Once, possibly even twice. But when I used to watch EMHE, it was repeated non-stop for at least 5 minutes, like no one could think of anything else to say. I couldn't take it - I stopped watching. But it's not like I'm conducting an anti-EMHE campaign called, "Stop the Blasphemy!" :lol:

 

I watch a lot of HGTV and people can think of all sorts of things to say besides that: "Wow!" "This is incredible!" "I can't believe this!" "Is this our house?" etc.

 

You took out part of my quote which stated that this is my personal experience, based on my life. What you quoted makes it look like I think this about everyone, which is far from true.

Edited May 22, 2011 by unsinkable

[Mynyel]

I don't like to say it, nor my kids but I will freely admit to saying other things when riled up. So I can't say it is right or wrong since I tend to slip :D.

 

However I know nothing of the sabbath day. I believe you can take it however you want. I work 7 days a week. I have to if I want to get my hours in. I so school with the kids on Sunday so that we have Saturday's off and half days on Wednesday. We don't have a sabbath day so to speak.

 

My take on some of this is that people can get really, really religious about some things and completely leave the point of whatever it is behind. So I don't make a habit out of anything but reading the Bible and praying.

[sassenach]

My take on some of this is that people can get really, really religious about some things and completely leave the point of whatever it is behind. So I don't make a habit out of anything but reading the Bible and praying.

 

:iagree: I don't pray to "gosh." The scriptures are sufficient and I feel no need to add extra biblical guidelines to them.

[Tree House Academy]

I grew up saying OMG, but I never thought of it back then as taking the Lord's name in vain. As a matter of fact, I thought of it more like "calling out to God." But, I wasn't raised with a great foundation in the Bible. We were Christian, but didn't go much past gracing the pew on Sunday morning, occasionally.

 

Now that I am grown, I try hard not say OMG. I don't like to hear it. It is a habit for most, but it is disrespectful, IMO. I will say, "oh goodness, or oh gosh" instead. I don't allow my children to say it either, but have been told a time or two that that have said it when I wasn't around - due to friends saying it.

[LittleIzumi]

The PP who said we speak God's name in awe & reverence. That sums up my feelings on it very well. OMG!!!!!! is pretty much never speaking of Him in awe & reverence. It's a knee-jerk expression of shock (usually).

I'm glad I read this thread though, as now I understand why some people feel it's okay to use.

[Liz CA]

Eliana, I can see where the misunderstanding comes from when some churches say they don't believe the old Testament has any validity for them today.

In my church it is definitely not discounted but rather taken as part of history and as the basis for many events described in the New Testament.

I am curious (not snarky) how you view the verses in Psalms and Proverbs and if the Jews don't consider them as important as Torah (books of Moses)?

[Ester Maria]

I am curious (not snarky) how you view the verses in Psalms and Proverbs and if the Jews don't consider them as important as Torah (books of Moses)?

The Torah - both Written (i.e. Pentateuch) and Oral (that which was meant to remain oral tradition but was later collected, elaborated and codified by several generations of scholars) - is considered to be divine. Divine, in sense of being directly God-given to the Jewish people on Mount Sinai, in sense of being a word of God par excellence (I am simplifying things a bit as when it comes to Oral law it is a bit more complicated than that, but you get the picture). There are principles of deriving Jewish law and these books are legally binding according to those same principles.

 

The non-Torah parts of Tanach are technically speaking not legally binding, are not words of God ('inspired', maybe, some parts, but not equivalent to God's revelation) and are just - how do you put it? - accumulated wisdom and experience of generations. So we have proverbs, poetry, prophecies, some historical writings, etc. which make up a "mosaic", if you wish, of the Jewish Biblical times experience. However, it is a rich "mosaic" and not all parts of it are legally binding, considered true par excellence, considered divine and so forth.

 

One of the roots of fundamental misunderstandings of Judaism on the part of Christians is in the lack of understanding of Oral Law, what exactly it is and how it is viewed to be intertwined with the Written one. If you base your view of Judaism on the Hebrew Bible, you are getting a very limited view, which is in fact so limited that the prism through which you view it may even distort it, so to speak.

 

I also never really understood clear principles on which Christians derive their laws. Why dietary laws not, but "ten commandments" yes. Why not shatnez, which is also Biblical, etc.

[Hedgehogs4]

We do not use OMG in our home.

 

To me it is a huge clue that it must be very sacred because it is used so flippantly--you don't hear people running around saying "oh, Vishnu!" or "Good Buddha!" as a means to intensify or punctuate emotive statements.

[Scarlett]

We are anti OMG.

 

Hee hee. This is funny.

 

We are too....but it is very hard to keep out of our everyday language. We do our best though...I don't like it when I hear it out of my child's mouth....so then start listening to my own words....

[Mejane]

I don't like OMG when it's used repeatedly, similar to the words "like" or "you know". That's a vocabulary and public speaking arrogance on my part. ;)

 

 

 

Omg, like right? (flips back hair and snaps gum)

 

:D

[Gooblink]

I've never been offended by OMG. To me, "god" is generally a title, not a sacred name.

 

However, I feel a stab in my heart when I see "Xtian." It's like dismissing an integral part of who I now am.

 

As far as Christians deciding which parts of "Law" to keep and which to ignore...I agree, it's a hodgepodge and would confuse anyone. Even this Christian. Jesus said that if you love God with your whole heart, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as you love yourself, then the whole Law is covered. I'm still not sure how to love God that way, but I do know how to show love and compassion to my neighbor.

 

Jesus, the apostles, other disciples and the first Christian church fathers were Jews, first. Saul/Paul called himself a Pharisee's Pharisee. Whatever they knew of Jesus was enough to convince them he was Messiah to the point of dying for their belief. I find that compelling. I still don't understand how one can read Isaiah and not see Jesus. But, then, I read the book through a Chrisitan filter.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Gooblink

[KarenNC]

To me it is a huge clue that it must be very sacred because it is used so flippantly--you don't hear people running around saying "oh, Vishnu!" or "Good Buddha!" as a means to intensify or punctuate emotive statements.

 

I see two assumptions here that are problematic (if one assumes you are serious--which may be the third false assumption :)):

1) that any expression used to "intensify or punctuate emotive statements" must therefore be "very sacred." I certainly hear plenty of people using other words in this manner and I don't think that it means that references to certain bodily functions or reproductive practices are "very sacred."

2) that the use of the word "God" is specifically to the Christian (or Jewish as some have said) understanding of God. I don't know what "OMG" would mean when it is said (as it is) by Hindus or Buddhists (though I would interested to find out). I would suspect it is more of a cultural thing. I would say that you probably also don't hear "Oh my Ahura Mazda" because there isn't a majority of Zoroastrian heritage in most English-speaking countries.

I would be fascinated to find out from someone who was raised in/lives in a predominantly non-English-speaking Buddhist or Hindu culture what the common terms of surprise/disgust/etc are in the languages of those cultures. I have no idea.

[KarenNC]

Jesus, the apostles, other disciples and the first Christian church fathers were Jews, first. Saul/Paul called himself a Pharisee's Pharisee. Whatever they knew of Jesus was enough to convince them he was Messiah to the point of dying for their belief. I find that compelling. I still don't understand how one can read Isaiah and not see Jesus. But, then, I read the book through a Christian filter.

 

 

That filter makes all the difference in the world. A Christian comes to Isaiah (and the rest of the Tanakh, indeed anything Jewish) with the assumption that it is and always was a foreshadowing to Christianity.When I was a teen, I was taken to a Jews for Jesus seder, where everything in the seder was redacted to be a pointer to Christianity. Nothing could be farther from the Jewish understanding of the seder. Think about how a Muslim approaches the stories about Jesus---there's a bit of a difference;).

 

There's a very interesting lecture on some of the differences between the Jewish and Christian understanding of the Scriptures available free online from Dr. Amy Jill Levine, a Conservative Jew who is a respected professor of New Testament studies at Vanderbilt Divinity School.

She addresses Isaiah. Edited May 23, 2011 by KarenNC

[Hedgehogs4]

I once read this statement and it stuck with me:

 

If we TRULY comprehended who God is... His holiness, His righteousness... who He really is... we would be a lot more careful with how we use His name.

 

And I totally agree. We can get into semantics and theological discussions and break down the Hebrew words if you want but in reality we should be very respectful with ANY use of His Holy Name.

 

:iagree:

 

I see two assumptions here that are problematic (if one assumes you are serious--which may be the third false assumption :)):

1) that any expression used to "intensify or punctuate emotive statements" must therefore be "very sacred." I certainly hear plenty of people using other words in this manner and I don't think that it means that references to certain bodily functions or reproductive practices are "very sacred."

2) that the use of the word "God" is specifically to the Christian (or Jewish as some have said) understanding of God. I don't know what "OMG" would mean when it is said (as it is) by Hindus or Buddhists (though I would interested to find out). I would suspect it is more of a cultural thing. I would say that you probably also don't hear "Oh my Ahura Mazda" because there isn't a majority of Zoroastrian heritage in most English-speaking countries.

I would be fascinated to find out from someone who was raised in/lives in a predominantly non-English-speaking Buddhist or Hindu culture what the common terms of surprise/disgust/etc are in the languages of those cultures. I have no idea.

 

If you want to have a really technical and logical debate, then of course you are correct. I think, however, you know what I really meant...In our culture, (as you said) it is generally an offense to one who believes in the God of the Bible. They do not choose the name of a god that is not important to us to swear or use as an intensifier / expletive. I'm sure if another god were the most sacred or important, people would figure a way to desecrate that instead. I can honestly say that I would rather hear any swear word (not that I like it) other than the name of Lord or my God used, if one feels he/she must use such language. In the same way I would not like for people to flippantly insult a family member, I do not wish to hear the name of my God used lightly.

[Sevilla]

The way I had been taught in Sunday school (I grew up Lutheran in Germany) had a completely different focus of that commandment. Our ministers interpreted this that claiming to do things "in God's name" (for instance starting a "holy" war, or forcing others to adhere to your rules, or invoking God to justify some action), is violating the commandment because it is invoking God's name in vain. Cursing was never mentioned and is not regarded that big a deal, even in my congregation.

I have a CD of the Lutheran Catechism for kids and in the section on the 10 commandments, they define each one. Here is the text for the 2nd commandment:

 

The Second Commandment.

 

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.

 

What does this mean?

 

We should fear and love God that we may not curse, swear, use witchcraft, lie, or deceive by His name, but call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks.

http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php

[Liz CA]

 

...but what does that mean in terms of *law*, of commandments? Does your church hold that the commandments of what I would call Tanakh are binding on you? Or only certain ones? And how are those ones chosen?

 

I remember someone saying to once here that it was the 'ritual' laws which weren't binding anymore... and someone else saying, only the ones not mentioned, or someone hinted at, in your New Testament... and someone else saying that none were *obligatory*, they were all optional enhancements... (I think that last one might have been Peek a Boo.)

 

 

 

The way I understand it is that we don't do the sacrifices any longer since the ultimate blood sacrifice was performed by Jesus. However, Proverbs and Psalms still hold a lot of Godly wisdom, just as you said, in particular regarding human relationship and business dealings. The subject of wisdom and foolishness is explored, child rearing, obviously the 10 Commandments, you referred to "Women of Valor", is this what we call Proverbs 31? All of these passages hold a sort of eternal truth, even though the commandments / laws of Deuteronomy are not obeyed any longer because of the Messiah.

 

You explained the Jewish stance very well - levels of revelation. I have some connections with a Reconstructionist Synagogue and for them Torah is the main Biblical text (I think this is what they call Tanakh) and they call other books of the *Old Testament* "Prophets", i.e Daniel and Isaiah among others.

[Liz CA]

Thank you, Ester Maria. This was also very helpful.

On the point of why we do not consider the need to keep kashrut law, this is probably best explained in our *New Testament" where it explicitly allows us the consumption of all foods. However, the New Testament does not revoke the 10 commandments.

[asta]

I am completely deficient in my studies regarding Judaism, so I can't compare the two --at all-- but Roman Catholicism has staunchly maintained an oral tradition as well (and received a rash of sh!t by subsequent splinter religions for doing so).

 

I've never understood this.

 

I mean, the "movement" of Christianity itself was "started" by a Jew. Of COURSE there would be an oral tradition! It's not like CNN was there.

 

 

a

Edited May 23, 2011 by asta
I really shouldn't post while asleep

[Tam101]

I would throw in a lot of Christian phrases and lingo as breaking this commandment too. "God told me to..." "The Lord is leading me to..." "The Holy Spirit directed us to..." If you do something or decide something and then stamp God's name of approval on it in order to make it spiritual and above questioning, this breaks the commandment more than an OMG.

:iagree:

[Liz CA]

I am chuckling as you write you feel you have to translate everything. It's similar for me. I am truly glad I am familiar with a few of the Hebrew terms through my connection with the Temple.

 

I see that it is very confusing because as Christians, we usually (speaking here from my experience with fellow Christians and our church) see the Old Testament as one text and the New Testament as another. They are separated in our Bibles but no Bible is considered complete without the two. If you buy a Bible only containing the New Testament, it is usually pointed out very prominently so you know you are NOT getting the whole Bible.

 

I am saying all this because - if I get this correctly - there are subdivisions in Judaism (from what I heard even quite a few differences between Orthodox, Reconstructionist and Reform Synagogues) within the Bible...meaning Torah is divinely inspired whereas other "prophets" are not necessarily divinely inspired but still hold wisdom. What we consider the Old Testament and what you consider the ONLY Testament, so to speak (I am trying to translate again, awkward, isn't it? :001_smile:) is not divided into these factions of Torah and *other.* I was told by the Rabbi of the Reconstructionist Temple that Torah is what is read every Saturday and it goes by an established pattern, parashat ....(Torah Portion) is what they call it. They read through just the Torah portions in one year.

 

When Christians read the Old Testament, there are many things mentioned (laws, commandments as you call them) that were superseded by other passages in the New Testament, blood sacrifices, certain rules about when one can have their hair cut and others that we don't find binding anymore in light of the New Testament. The 10 commandments are in Deuteronomy 5 and are never "repealed" in the New Testament nor superseded with any other passages. It is therefore difficult to explain which Old Testament passages are not being adhered to without knowing the New Testament. Proverbs and Psalms in particular are what you described, guidelines for living and comfort during trials. I cannot imagine a Bible without them but it does not mean I feel obligated to follow every rule prescribed in Leviticus or Deuteronomy, for instance.

[Ester Maria]

Asta, I am not sure we are talking about the same tradition. I pretty much semi-attended Catholic RE (i.e. was physically present there, only not "officially", if it was fitting my schedule to read there, so I overheard a lot of stuff), for at least some years in school, and I have never ONCE heard anything about the *Jewish* oral tradition there, i.e. about that which was later collected and codified as rabbinical writings and which is known today as Talmud.

 

On the other hand, I did hear a lot about apostolic oral tradition, but in sense of something that started with Jesus talking to apostles, NOT something which was a Jewish canon of oral tradition, so to speak... I may be a bit off, as I really do not understand the finer intricacies of Catholicism, but I really always had the idea that we are talking about two fundamentally different things.

 

For example, work on shabat is forbidden. BUT, the written Torah does not DEFINE what exactly CONSTITUTES work, and without the oral law, we cannot know it... Oral law, on the other hand, explains in details about the types of work which are considered actions on the environment and which are thus forbidden. And then to make the things even more complex, you have "laws" which are DERIVATES of those laws... So, doing something TODAY, in a technologically more complex society, may still be wrong even if back then they did not know electricity... but there are PRINCIPLES as to what consititutes work that can be applied today. There is even a whole set of rabbinical extensions of basic laws, and there are even things such as national customs, with no normative value in their origin, which turned normative meanwhile by the value of being Israel's custom, etc.

 

It is these type of stuff that Eliana and I talk about when we talk about oral law.

[Slartibartfast]

I was talking to Dh about this last night and thought that maybe other Christians define "taking the Lord's name in vain" differently than we do. :confused:

 

 

Yes, some people define it as putting words in God's mouth.

 

"God hates cheesemakers"

 

"God hates horse shoe throwing, it is mean to take horse's shoes"

 

"God told me to eat all the ice cream"

 

That is what I believe, I am sure it is just as offensive for people to hear "OMG" as it is for me to hear other people give God's opinion on various matters or state that God supports certain ideals when God states the opposite in that book he wrote. I do get annoyed hearing "OMG" all the time but I am not religiously offended by it.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Sis

[Sevilla]

[Hoping to explain clearly the perspective from the other side, I apologize for any unintentional offense]

 

Asta, I am not sure we are talking about the same tradition. I pretty much semi-attended Catholic RE (i.e. was physically present there, only not "officially", if it was fitting my schedule to read there, so I overheard a lot of stuff), for at least some years in school, and I have never ONCE heard anything about the *Jewish* oral tradition there, i.e. about that which was later collected and codified as rabbinical writings and which is known today as Talmud.

 

On the other hand, I did hear a lot about apostolic oral tradition, but in sense of something that started with Jesus talking to apostles, NOT something which was a Jewish canon of oral tradition, so to speak... I may be a bit off, as I really do not understand the finer intricacies of Catholicism, but I really always had the idea that we are talking about two fundamentally different things.

I believe she is referring to the Roman Catholic church's 'Tradition' which is considered on par with Scritpure [which is a view not shared by Protestants, though they still have their own tradition as well through which they interpret Scripture].

 

For example, work on shabat is forbidden. BUT, the written Torah does not DEFINE what exactly CONSTITUTES work, and without the oral law, we cannot know it...

The Christian take on this is that the Holy Spirit can reveal it to us individually and/or corporately and that its meaning can change over time - it's supposed to be principles and that the details are revealed in each situation. This allows for flexibility/adaptability across different cultures, personalities, and situations.

 

It would be very difficult for a Christian to embrace the mentality that everything is already laid out to follow, to the smallest detail, through oral tradition (even when it doesn't seem to make sense). Such an approach is viewed as having a huge potential to actually lead people into sin [two sins - 1. Spiritual pride/arrogance of thinking that rule-following means holiness 2. Disconnect from God b/c of a lack of personal relationship. Many testimonies talk about people who were 'rule followers' or 'pharisees' but weren't really connected to God, and then when they were changed in their viewpoint they became much more tolerant and grace-filled in their understanding of the faith and saw the focus was on relationship and love of God and other people instead of following rules.)

 

This view comes up most often when discussing the debates between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Gospels and the debates between Paul and the Judaizers in the early church in the Epistles and Acts.]

 

Oral law, on the other hand, explains in details about the types of work which are considered actions on the environment and which are thus forbidden. And then to make the things even more complex, you have "laws" which are DERIVATES of those laws... So, doing something TODAY, in a technologically more complex society, may still be wrong even if back then they did not know electricity...

These things are considered a 'hedge' that Jesus did away with in the Gospels through his teaching. If you spend time in evangelical circles the idea of the oral tradition that was part of Judaism at the time was vehemently rejected as being legalistic and following the letter of the law but losing the spirit of the law.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Sevilla
clarity and mispelling ; )

[asta]

What Sevilla said.

 

I did not mean to infer that Jewish oral tradition and Catholic oral tradition were the same thing, only that both religions HAD one.

 

Catholicism is quite often criticized for this "living faith" concept of the bible + oral tradition vs the bible alone by other sects of Christianity. I always find it amusing, as the other sects were splinters from Catholicism -- but that is another discussion altogether.

 

 

asta