Where's the Christian book of rules?

[TRYPHO]

I was having a discussion with a Christian staff member on Saturday about the reasons Christians do or dont do various things. Eg what they should do/shouldn't do on the sabbath, why they dont obey the OT commandments (beyond the first 10), what they can/cant do re abortion, contraception, euthanasia etc etc.

Unfortunately the staff member is young and doesn't have all the answers, and kept saying its all in the New Testament or in one's heart.

Now, as a Jew, I refer to the Torah first, then the Talmud 2nd, then clarification in the Gemorah, and finally modern arguments updated in rabbinic laws. Its all there for all to see. I have a nice set of Shulchan Aruch in front of me that tells me what to do if (insert anything) happens. I know what I can/cant do, should/shouldn't do, under any circumstance for any occasion.

My staff member belongs to an non-sepcific Christian congregation, and she wasn't sure what the differences were between the various other Christian denominations, nor how or when they came about (and why should she? Or, I, for that matter).

However, given all these different types of Christianity, and presumably all their different decisions for various different circustances, WHO makes the decisions, and WHERE are they recorded? How would a Christian decide WHAT they should consider "work" on the Sabbath means? Why would a triple-jumper not jump on a saturday (since he's not creating anything by doing it?). What "rules" of Chrstianity are there, and where are they. Who does the Pope speak for, and who not, and who decides on the rulings for those others?

TRYPHO

[PDittie]

1. I keep mine right next to

The Liberal Agenda.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Ask her why the Roman Catholic church is not considered Christian

Ask her what the lineage is of her church

Ask her why her church should be consider better than the Roman Cathlic, Lutherans, Baptists or any other religion.

Ask her why the Roman Catholic church that started the Christian religion is not considered the religion for Christians.

Ask her when the Bible became the Bible.

[TRYPHO]

4. She's only 17 and doesn't know anything. Thats why I'm asking here.

I'm not trying to teach her anything, I'm trying to LEARN something. If you have something you can offer to teach me, feel free, but don't ask me questions to ask my young shop assistant, who can't even define her own church.

TRYPHO

[LiberalFighter]

3. Other then the NT what is the difference between the Bible and Torah?

What is the Talmud 2nd and the Gemorah?

[TRYPHO]

6. The Talmud debates the laws...and gives decisions

The Talmud is divided in to the Mishnah and the Gemorah, in which the Gemorah debates it in greater depth. There are other reference books for further debate. Most date back thousands of years. THe main two - the Bavli (Babylonian) and Jerusalem (not actually from Jerusalem but thats what its called) Talmudim (Talmud's) were written from about 500yrs B.C.E.

The debates often took hundreds of years, but once decided were written down for all to know. But they weren't fixed in stone. The laws on marriage for example could change. Men can no longer take 2 wives. The laws of Moses were a styarting point and God gave the Jews the power for Judges/SanHedrin/Rabbi's to constantly update the Laws.

I cannot find a Christian equivalent.

TRYPHO

[Meshuga]

18. Responsa

The different movements have their own books of responsa to deal with contemporary issues. The orthodox are pretty strict and they don't change the laws in their responsa. For them it would be sort of heresy to make changes since these laws were literally given by God in their opinion.

Conservative, Reform, Reconstrucionalists, etc. see the changes in the law as the methaphorical "new revelations from God" since they see the Torah being given to Moses as metaphorical. The orthodox movements need to hear the literal voice of God in order to change anything but since God hasn't said anything lately they refrain from making any changes and get pissed off at the non-orthodox movements for adapting Judaism to deal with contemporary issues. For example, according to Reform Halacha (law) a Rabbi is allowed to perform gay marrieges and gay rabbis are ordained. This is declared in the CCAR books of responsa. Also, the conservative movement has just passed a law in December that allows their rabbis to officiate in gay weddings and allow the ordination of gay rabbis.

[BurtWorm]

52. There isn't one. What the Pope said went--and still goes for RC xians.

But otherwise, Paulism threw the law out the window early on. All you needed was "faith" to be right with God(s).

[Meshuga]

16. The Torah

There is the written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah consists of the Talmud (Mishnah, Gemarrah, Midrash) like Trypho explained. The written Torah and the Oral Torah are the "twin towers" of rabbinic Judaism.

Orthodox Jews believe the Torah (written and oral) was literally given by God to Moses at Sinai. Therefore they are bound to the laws.

Conservative Jews believe the Torah was written by humans but say Jews are bound to follow Jewish Law for the sake of religion and/or tradition.

Reform Jews don't see the Torah as binding and claim that Jews should only follow the laws they think will be helpful in making them more ethical human beings and for sake of tradition.

The written torah consist of the five books of moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) it's not the entire Tanach (AKA "Old testament").

The "old testament" in the Christian Bible is only a translation of the Tanach and there are instances of mistranslations to create the context of a "prequal to the Jesus/NT".

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. Christianity very fragmented on this

I believe the Catholics rely on Papal doctrine and interpretations of the scriptures.

I was raised Methodist, and was taught that Jesus said we no longer went by the Old Testament commandments but by these two:

1. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy mind, thy, soul, and thy strength

2. Love thy neighbor as thyself

Realize the pastor I grew up with was very liberal; he felt sincerely that these were the only two commandments to follow, and that you had to look to your heart to know when you were following them.

Other Protestant pastors interpret the writings of Paul to say what one should or shouldn't do, but it gets rather fluid--ie, the Southern Baptists broke away from the Baptist Church around the time of the Civil War because they took to heart the writing of Paul that says slaves should obey their masters--but I don't think they advocate that now. :)

Judaism is called, in our Universal Worship Service, the Light of the Divine Law--because that faith is so organized to make the Law of God clear to those who follow that path.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Ask her where Jesus told anyone they didn't have to obey the OT laws

[TRYPHO]

9. Trypho got the answer for that question...

Chapter 11

"Trypho," I began, "there never will be, nor has there ever been from eternity, any other God except Him who created and formed this universe. Furthermore, we do not claim that our God is different from yours, for He is the God who, with a strong hand and outstretched arm, led your forefathers out of the land of Egypt. Nor have we placed our trust in any other (for, indeed, there is no other), but only in Him whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. But, our hope is not through Moses or through the Law, otherwise our customs would be the same as yours. <2> Now, indeed, for I have read, Trypho, that there should be a definitive law and a covenant, more binding than all others, which now must be respected by all those who aspire to the heritage of God. The law promulgated at Horeb is already obsolete, and was intended for you Jews only, whereas the law of which I speak is simply for all men . Now, a later law in opposition to an older law abrogates the older; so, too, does a later covenant void an earlier one. An everlasting and final law, Christ Himself, and a trustworthy covenant has been given to us, after which there will be no law, or commandment, or precept .

From http://www.bombaxo.com/trypho.html

highlights/underlines are added by me.

TRYPHO

[LiberalFighter]

8. I guess the Christian book of rules would be what the minister tells them

Nothing set down in paper except in the Bible. But they probably don't read it completely. And confusing.

[TRYPHO]

10. But surely (at least for Roman Catholics) there must be a book

The Popes constantly making decisions on condom use, contraception, etc. These must be collected somewhere, and possibly updated/released in a big book of rules?
I accept the other denominations may not have this, but perhaps they have something to explain their understanding of Christs presence.

Where are these books? How does a Baptist know he doesn't follow Lutherin concepts?

TRYPHO
(very confused!)

[rug]

19. For Catholics, this is comprehensive:

Each of your questions is addressed there.

[TRYPHO]

34. Thankyou for that (and the others of you that posted the same)

Having taken a look at

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/prologue.html#life

I think I have found the answer/s I was looking for.

TRYPHO

[kikiek]

22. I would really recommend you read some books about the history of

religion. "The Jesus Papers" was written by one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and is very informative.

[Coyote_Bandit]

11. There is no clear answer

There are clear differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholicism grants some authority to tradition and church leaderships as well as to Scripture.

Meanwhile, Protestantism has adopted Sola Scriptura - a view which asserts that the sole authority is Scripture. Problem is that there are fundamental differences between different Protestant sects involving the most basic doctrines. The impact of Sola Scriptura is that many Protestant leaders have adopted a "if you don't like it, leave" attitude toward those within the congregation who question and challenge their teachings. The result, of course, is an ever increasing plethora of Protestant sects. Some articulate their doctrine better than others. Now add to this confused mix the concepts of the Charismatic renewal and Pentecostalism - Protestant sects which believe that God's revelation is both ongoing and experiential.

I am not Catholic but I have read with interest several articles pertaining to Catholic apologetics. These articles dealt specifically with the Reformation teachings of Sola Scriptura and refuted the doctrine. Interestingly, the articles were written by Protestants who had converted to Catholicism. You should be able to find some of these online with a Google search if you are so inclined.

[TRYPHO]

12. Thank you for that....but

It just seems SO at odds with Judaisms plethora of rules, dicsussed to the nth degree for millenia, that there doesn't appear to be ANY in depth DISCUSSION anywhere, with a set of "results"! Even if you have a no-debate religion, the "doctrines" should be written somewhere, I'm convinced they must be SOMEWHERE.

You must have a book to atleast teach your ministers from? There must be some book they refer to (other than the New Testament) for occasions when a decision needs to be made.

Surely!?

TRYPHO
(I suppose I could be wrong and there IS no book, but I really wont believe it!)

[papau]

14. Jesus said all the laws are in Love the Lord thy God ....Love thy neighbor as thyself

1. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, thy mind, thy, soul, and thy strength

2. Love thy neighbor as thyself

All the rest that is written is only commentary. And for the Christian commentary is just opinion that is not law - respected, revered, even followed if you agree, but not law.

AND as you note - the commentary is not finished as there will always be more to write about and put in the Talmud and the Gemorah, among other locations.

The Roman Church recently went into Papal statements never being incorrect - so I assume they can not be change - but that was so recent (1850's) that the dust has not yet settled, and we will see if that approach will last for the next few thousand years. For the Protestant, I am not sure all such folks regard the Niacin Creed as binding.

But for the Fundi Protestant - there are rules - which seem to be whatever is the interpretation is the understanding of their priest. And The 30 million Fundi's in the US are not uniform in their understanding of all that many parts of the Bible.

[TexasProgresive]

20. Papal infallibility is not what you think

It has only happened twice. Not everything a pope says or writes or thinks is infallible. It is very narrow what constitutes an Ex Cathedra (from the chair of Peter) teaching.

Edited to add:
And your 2 "laws" from Jesus are actually from the Jewish testament. Loving God with all your heart - etc is the Shema an is to be recited by every pious Jew daily, is to be inscribed on their doorways and the most radical of Jews will have it strapped to their arm and foreheads. The command to love neighbor as yourself comes from Deuteronomy. What Jesus said is that these two commands pretty much contain the 10. If you think about it the first 3 of the 10 commandments are about our relationship with God. The remainder have to do with our relationship with each other.

[Meshuga]

21. Sh'ma

"And your 2 'laws' from Jesus are actually from the Jewish testament. Loving God with all your heart - etc is the Shema an is to be recited by every pious Jew daily, is to be inscribed on their doorways and the most radical of Jews will have it strapped to their arm and foreheads."

You don't have to be a radical or the most radical of Jews to wear tefillin in morning prayers at shul. Or to have a mezuzah affixed to your doorpost. The mezuzah turns your home into a Jewish home and most affiliated liberal Jews have them at their doorpost. :-)

Yes, the 2 "laws" from Jesus are Jewish laws from the Torah.

[papau]

23. Very True - but Mt 22:37-40 is the Christian New Testament Reference. As to the pope

and infallibility (which I agree has been claimed in only a few instances, and only 2 specific instances have been confirmed by the Magisterium)-

The Vatican itself has given no list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone, the leaders of the CDF, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list.

I believe that your statement that were only two instances of papal infallibility (Ex Cathedra) you are referring to fact that the First Vatican Council of 1870 noted Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (Munificentissimus Deus) as being an instance of papal infallibility (speaking Ex Cathedra). The Roman Church's magisterium (and the current Pope) have also listed as a prior infallible statement Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

But in the spirit of the current Pope suggesting his list is not complete - there is a book that has a list-
Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

But again the Pope when he was Cardinal Ratzinger said that his 1998 list was not being presented as complete.

[Zhade]

50. Well, let's be more accurate: nothing a pope says/thinks/does is infallible.

They're mere humans, just like us.

They just THINK they're capable of infallibility, which is of course ludicrous arrogance.

[kikiek]

24. Pope was pronounced infallible 17 July 1870.Council of Nicaea decided Jesus was divine

in 325 A.D. Obviously there were many political reasons behind it. Council of Hippo 393-397 AD decided what the New Testament would contain. The contents were decided on what they believed Christianity should be. It is all very shaky at best.

[papau]

26. I'd view Nicaea as being on the Trinity/divinity, and as for what books should be in the

New Testament, St. Athanasius 367 AD, published as a regional canon the first list of books suitable for reading during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (it included what the Protestants call the "Apocrypha"). This list was accepted by Pope St. Damasus I in 382 AD as he approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople, noting he would accept other books only if he was given a convincing explanation. Then we had in 393 AD the Council of Hippo reaffirming The Decree of Damasus, and the 397 the third Council of Carthage also reaffirmed The Decree of Damasus. Carthage, and unlike Hippo, then went on to the next step and sent its decisions to Rome for ratification. Pope St. Boniface I (418-422) ratified the decision, followed by the 419 AD Fourth Council of Carthage reaffirming Pope St. Boniface. The Council of Nicea II in 787 AD ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches. But it was not until the Council of Trent(1545-1563), which was a "worldwide Ecumenical Council" that the list in the Decree of Damasus was formally proclaimed the Catholic Canon of Sacred Scripture and authoritative for the whole world.

The Protestant list still varies amongst the various Churches we call Protestant.

The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils re canons is agreed by most Christians - at least as to the first 7 councils if not to all 21 held to date - and is logical given

Jn 16:13 ("when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth.")
Jn 14:26 ("the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things")
Lk 10:16 ("He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.")
1 Jn 2:27 ("let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him.")
Acts 15:28 ("For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, ...") (the Apostles speak with voice of Holy Ghost)
Mt 28:20 ("Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days...")

I personally also accept the Orthodox Church idea that the infallibility of these councils' statements is derived from their acceptance by the faithful (and thus from the infallibility of all believers as the Holy Spirit moves through them).

And then I wander off the ranch as I see little harm and much good in the early church universalist concept, and I find the unitarian approach compatible with the Trinity - most likely because I lack information on why it is not compatible(this one of the many, many areas where I have only superficial knowledge, if that).

[Coyote_Bandit]

15. That book is the Bible

Catholics look to the Bible, to church leaders and to church traditions. I understand that there are writings of various dictates from church leaders through the centuries. I am not Catholic and have no knowledge as to whether or not they are published and available to laity. In any event, Catholicism predates the printing press (and the ability of most adherents to read) by about 1500 years. I do know that Pope John Paul II published a text regarding church doctrines several years before his death.

With respect to Protestant Christianity, there are conflicting interpretations of Scripture among the different sects. Some Protestant church denominations have published various doctrinal statements on different issues. These often carry authority within that specific denomination.

Protestant theology relies on the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura - which means that it relies on the Bible. Different Protestant groups hold conflicting views regarding the authority of the Old and New Testament. Some Protestant groups reject various modern translations of Scripture based on the manuscript which was used as a basis for the translation. Nonetheless, all Protestant groups will try to justify their views directly or indirectly by appealing to the Bible. Even those Protestant groups that believe that God's revelation is ongoing and experiential test the validity of that "revelation" by looking to see whether it conflicts with Scripture.

Sorry, I can't give you any better answer with respect to Christianity generally. However, I suspect you can get better answers with respect to specific Christian sects. Even the pentecostal Assembly of God church has published a text of systematic theology and has issued several formal doctrinal statements.

[Dorian Gray]

32. The catechism

is not made up willy nilly. It's a book of rules that have been extrapolated from scripture. It explains our beliefs in a clear and straighforward way, using scripture and early religious papers to back up those beliefs.

[Dorian Gray]

31. Not all Protestants

embrace "sola scripture." Episcopalians and Lutherans views are closer to the Catholic view in these matters.

[left is right]

13. According to Jesus there are only two rules

Love God with all your heart. And love your neighbor as your self. All the law and prophets are wrapped up in these

[xchrom]

17. as others have said -- it's complicated.

however the coming of the messiah completes and effectively ends the covenant.

especially with paul breaking with the rest of the apostles and going to egypt and then greece to convert gentiles to christianity.

gentiles were not held to the rules of circumcision, or food, or some of the others.

christ marks the breaking point -- and paul begins the codification.

read st augustine for more detailed, very old delineations.

and the letters of paul to the corinthians, ephesians, etc

it's also in the letters of paul that you begin to get the basis for -- hundreds of years later -- the end of slavery.

luther in his protest against the excesses of rome begins to delineate rules for protestants -- marking them as a group distinct from catholics -- i.e. the idea of a personal god really begins to flourish with luther -- and this marks the breaking point with a person needing a priest for confession.

calvin later on makes even more delineations -- as did henry the VIII and the conflict he sets up in england.

we have two thousand years of christian wisdom, many philosophers.

such as ammonius of alexandria -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonius_of_Alexandria_%28Christian%29

christian hermann weisse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Hermann_Weisse

the capadocian philosophies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_philosophers

christians didn't go the talmud route -- but that would be because we didn't feel connected to old testament.

[TRYPHO]

36. Why bother with the Old Testament then?

If Christs presence outdated all its statements and laws, and the new testament has to work so hard to try and put Christs presence in every scene. I appreciate that at the start proto-Christianity was a Jewish religion, so of course had to include it, but once that period ws over (say once Irenous decided the accepted Gospels, or certainly by nicea I when Jesus' divinity and trinity were coallesced, why not then repudiate the OT as outdated and superceded?

Why still accept it when you don't accept or apply whats commanded in it?


TRYPHO
(I appreciate no one can really answer this question)

[xchrom]

37. well, there's more to the OT than rules and regs, isn't there?

it's been over 5,ooo years since the founding of judaism -- does any body REALLY need the wisdom of the talmud?

to hopefully enlightened people these things become metaphor and allegory rather than stones.

[Meshuga]

38. The Jews need it

"it's been over 5,ooo years since the founding of judaism -- does any body REALLY need the wisdom of the talmud?"

Yes, we Jews need it. The Talmud, the Torah and all Jewish scripture are very important for Jews since these texts define Jewish halacha (law) to be practiced by Jews today. Like the NT is meaningful to Christians, hence TRYPHO's question in the OP.

Jewish scripture is not obsolete to Jews they are still valid to all Jews one way or another. But since the OT is obsolete to Christians then what is the point of trying to make the OT as part of the Christian Bible? It should be disposed of by Christians since it is obsolete by their standards.

[xchrom]

39. we see ourselves as the offspring of judaism.

the ot story is our story as well.

even though we are gentiles.

we draw from moses and hannah and sarah and daniel.

the messiah we see as the completion of all ot prophesy and the completion of the covenent.

the new covenent is as others have pointed out -- the first two commandments.

now THAT'S certainly ot, isn't it?

[DemBones DemBones]

40. For Catholics, the Old Testament is part of Salvation History

and prefigures the events of the New Testament, so it can never be discarded. In Catholic theology, Jesus is "the new Adam" and Mary is "the new Eve." God chose Mary to be the vessel to bear His Son, Jesus, who would die to pay for our sins, to bring us salvation. This was made necessary because Satan tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, which she then encouraged Adam to eat. If Eve hadn't listened to a talking snake, we'd all be living in Eden today and this conversation would be unnecessary, since we'd all be Jews. But Eve did listen to Lucifer and she and Adam were banished from the Garden. According to the Old Testament, God tried destroying Sodom and Gomorrah and he tried sending the Great Flood, but still there was sin. Eventually, God decided on another intervention, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that all might have everlasting life."

(I should add here that some Christians believe that the Bible is literally true, every word of it. Catholics recognize that it's made up of history, poetry, prophecy, and revelation. I referred to the Great Flood above but I've read the Epic of Gilgamesh so I know the Bible wasn't the first account of the Flood. I've also read Genesis carefully enough to know that there are two different Creation sequences given there. One of them follows evolutionary history pretty neatly.)

There are also many verses in the Old Testament that foretell things that happened after the birth of Jesus and are recorded in the New Testament. The family trees of Jesus's mother and foster father are also chronicled in the Old Testament. Every Catholic Mass includes a reading from the Old Testament, a Psalm (which is often sung), a reading from the New Testament, and a reading from the Gospels (the books of Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the first four in the N.T.) The readings are chosen so that there is a relationship between them, and on any day, the same readings are heard in every Mass around the world.

A really important reason Christians haven't rejected the Old Testament is that Jesus was a Jew and knew the Jewish Scripture well, based his preaching on it. In the Gospels, Jesus says that he has come to bring a new covenant and that the old laws, such as the dietary laws, no longer are to be applied. The Pharisees tried to trap him by asking him what the greatest commandment is, to which he replied that the Great Commandment (or Commandments, depending on whether you divide it into two parts) is that "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself." Of course the Ten Commandments are all subsumed in that, though it's still useful to review the Ten Commandments, as Christians do, lest we forget the various ways in which we may sin against our neighbor. All Christians, as far as I know, place importance both on the Greatest Commandment(s) and on the Ten Commandments.

In addition to the Bible, Catholics have 2000 years of Tradition, about which much has been written, just as your more ancient Jewish Tradition has inspired many writings. These include Papal Encyclicals and other Papal writings but also writings of people like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Avila, and many others. Protestants threw out a lot of the historic Tradition to focus on the Bible alone (sola scriptura), as has been mentioned. They also eliminated books from the Old Testament, including the books of Maccabees, Judith, Susanna, Wisdom,Tobias, Baruch, which Catholics consider as part of the secondary canon. I'm not sure that they were ever part of the Hebrew Scriptures but they were found in the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. I know the relationship of Chanukah to the Maccabees so it would seem that the books of Maccabees were once part of your Scriptures?

As others have said, Catholics have the Catechism of the Catholic Church to clarify Catholic teachings. This is the Catechism prepared at the direction of Pope John Paul II, with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) doing a lot of the work on it. As I recall, it came out about 1993. There are older Catechisms that are still available. I think most mainstream Protestant groups have something roughly equivalent to a catechism, as well, i.e., a book that explains the intricacies of their particular tradition. Friends (Quakers) aren't mainstream but they have a book of faith and discipline.

The Nicene Creed is a very good summary of what Catholics believe. We say it at every Mass. But Catholics should be familiar with the Bible, Tradition, and the Catechism as well.

[struggle4progress]

51. The writings are a record of what people thought they understood in the past.

These understandings have changed with circumstances, as history progressed.

So one might look back and say, There was a time in this spiritual tradition when human sacrifice still may have seemed acceptable or when slavery or stoning people to death still seemed acceptable and realize that the tradition is not a static thing but grows and changes as people continue to seek to do what is right.

The understanding of Abraham and Sarah was not that of Isaac and Rebecca, nor was that of Isaac and Rebecca that of Jacob and Rachael: each passed on what they could, and those who came later built upon what had been done before.

Perhaps realizing that we in some ways may know better than those who came long before us, should make us stop to wonder which of our own habitual ideas we should abandon or change or develop for the benefit of those who will follow us.

[struggle4progress]

25. The answer Jesus gave was essentially the same as that given by Hillel

Hillel, asked by a mocker to teach him the whole law while he stood on one foot, said: Whatever you hate, don't do to your neighbor. That is the whole thing; everything else is just commentary.

Jesus, asked to identify the greatest commandment, said: Love the Lord with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

The purpose of the extensive commentary, of course, is that this is all more easily said than done.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. The Episcopal/Anglican churches base their decisions on a "three-legged

stool" of Scripture, tradition, and reason.

[greyl]

28. What's wrong with their "in one's heart" answer? nt

[greyl]

45. * don't read anything into that question, I'm just curious of your answer. nt

[TRYPHO]

48. We have RULES like you cant imagine, but it makes life easier.

Christians have no rules, just a belief. So the decision to do x or y is down to your heart, which strikes me as a choice you might make in error.

I am NOT allowed (by my religion, doesn't mean I keep it) to smoke on Shabbat - I know why that rule is there, AND I can source that back to the Old Testament, as I can EVERY rule. Also, the rules have the freedom to grow and change, they are alive, so they don't get out dated. They continue to apply to todays world.

Apart from Catholics who have a Pope who claims divine authority via Peter I believe, for some reason?, how do the rest of the Christians decide whether abortion is right or wrong, whether IVF is right or wrong, whether homoesexual priests or women priests or gay marriage or blood-transfusions or watching tv or cutting your hair or eating pork is right or wrong?

Who tells you? Because if its down to "faith" might you get it wrong, if its down to your leader might not he/she get it wrong, whereas if you had a rule book that was divine/agreed then you would not have to rely on a personal decision.

That's why I'm not totally satisfied with the "in your heart or 1st two commandments" answer greyl. But I admit I am biased by my familiarity with living according to a set of rules.

TRYPHO.

[Meshuga]

29. Christianity is about faith

and in Judaism conduct comes before faith so in Judaism we have a system of laws on how we should live our lives in order to achieve the proper conduct. We have books and more books of that to fill up a room to the ceiling. Where in Christianity, conduct comes with the consequence of faith in Jesus (I guess through his examples) so a system of codes is not really necessary to be a Christian since by faith alone you are considered a Christian. Conduct would be a consequence of that faith if the Christian decides to follow Jesus' conduct, I would guess.

So you (as someone who was raised Jewish) are expecting too much, I think, if you are looking for an equivalent or a Christian version of a Shulchan Aruch or a Mishneh Torah. I don't think there is a need for that in Christianity.

Christianity's goals are not to create rules for behavior for themselves in this world. They are preparing for the "next" so they are more preocupied with saving people from hell instead of sitting around writing codes of ethical law that a Christian must follow. I guess their standard for conduct would be a "what would Christ do in this situation?".

[TRYPHO]

35. Thanks for that concept MrW

I imagine its generally true, as many here quote the rule of WWJD and/or love God/Love thy neighbour, and leave the specifics down to the individual or Church/Church Leader.

It's certainly very strange coming from what I'm coming from to have such freedoms, but there you go, each to their own, eh.

Thanks for your input,

TRYPHO

[DemBones DemBones]

41. Christianity is a big category. It includes those who

believe that "once saved, always saved," which I suspect is the type of Christianity espoused by *. Adherents of this sort of Christianity may believe that they can commit all sorts of sins without consequences once they've been "saved." In other words, they go up to the altar, often during a revival, and profess their faith, maybe get baptized, depending on the sect, and they're guaranteed a spot in Heaven.

Catholics believe that we're saved by God's grace but that we are still supposed to do good works and behave ourselves. If you believe in what Jesus taught, why wouldn't you follow his teachings? Not to mention the Ten Commandments. . .

[TreasonousBastard]

42. Yeah-- Mr W has it pretty much right...

and we look at the OT as Law but the NT being Salvation. Most Christian traditions I'm familiar with have a lot of theology and ethical systems, but aren't all that big on specific rules. Even the rules they have are often as not waived for various reasons.

According to most Christian traditions, the fundamental relationship with God was changed with Christ's arrival. No longer did we have to obey the law to gain favor with God, but grace was freely given to us if we only accepted it. Rather than "prove ourselves" by strict adherence to rules and laws, we simply had to accept Christ, and if we genuinely accepted him we would act accordingly without the need for such specific guidance.

Needless to say, there are almost infinite variations on this theme from Christians arguing over it for 2,000 years, and few churches seem to be able to avoid setting up some of their their own rules about things. Most of the time, though, when "laws" are passed, there is a specific theological reason for them, and they often tend to result from the church's ethical system.

And, there are those customs that just tend to arise over the years. The Catholic practice of not eating meat on Fridays was such a thing, and nothing as serious as kosher prohibitions of pork or cheeseburgers.

[Dorian Gray]

30. For Catholics...

We've got the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which is a guide established by the Church which explains pretty much any question you can come up with. It was written as a guide for Catholics while using quotes from scripture to back up those points.

I don't know about any other denomination, though.

[Zebedeo]

33. WWJD n/t

*

[Az]

43. Doctrine and belief

Everyone reads religious doctrine differently. No two people interpret religious text the same. So doctrine is not truly the basis upon which people build a shared belief. Instead it is individuals or groups particular interpretation of doctrine that forms the basis upon which a group comes to believe the things they do.

A book does not propogate a belief on its own. It requires people teaching an idea to other people. A book is a very usefull tool for such a thing but it is the ideas people convey to people that form the bulk of belief.

Consider the multitude of sects and denominations of Christianity. Each one is a particular way or means of interpretting doctrine. There is an entire spectrum of belief extending from the Amish, to UltraFundamentalists all the way to Unitarians Universalists who have all but abandoned the doctrine.

A core aspect of the early Christian sects was reliance on texts supposedly written by authoritative individuals within the sect. These letters and texts became the basis of authority for those nominally in charge. It did not matter as much what was written in the text. What mattered was that they conveyed authority to the elders in charge. It provided the basis upon which to claim the right to speak authoratatively on what was supposed to be believed.

Consider further that for much of history the bible was considered a forbidden book to the general public. Only the clergy were supposed to have access to it. They were the fount from which interpretation flowed. But eventually more and more copies found their way to the common people and others and with it came schisms and fractionalization of the Church.

Whats written in the text doesn't really matter. What matters is what those who claim authority inform their followers of.

[Az]

44. Jesus: Early Humanist

Setting aside questions of Jesus existance or divinity philosophically speaking his teachings represent a shift from divine authority to one of humanist ideology. His focus was on treating each other better rather than on how specifically to worship and serve God.

Whether this was the result of social change or the actual teachings of an individual are a seperate point. But it remains that the Abrahamic sects were God centric prior to the teachings of Jesus and shifted to a more humane approach after.

As the shift was to a more humanist approach it enabled people to be more adaptive in their sense of morality. No longer was it necissary to site specific text and clause to determine if something was moral. If one applied the notion of the golden rule and love thy neighbor it was possible to determine if something was moral or not. This is basic humanism.

[Meshuga]

46. It was the pharisaic revolution around 2nd century BCE which...

...elevated the individual above the cultic system that was previously implemented by the Aronide priests in the Temple of Jerusalem. The pharisees did not get rid of the cultic God centric system but made it more irrelevant.

They proclaimed that God had given moses not only the written law, but the oral law as well, making the law twofold. This concept of the twofold law was open-ended and serving to solve problems in their days. And the scholar class had been vested with authority over this twofold legislation.

The pharisees scholars challenged the literal torah, which seemed to assign absolute power over the law to the class of aronide priests, with an appeal to an unwritten law assigning themselves this authority.

The concept of the golden rule was part of this twofold law.

On edit: Hillel (pharisee leader from the 1st century BCE) who is known to have said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Law; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" :-)

[TRYPHO]

47. Right so let me get this straight..

Christianity is about "faith" not rules. And the NT follows the OT so you can't really dismiss it as its part of your history because its where Jesus comes from. OK.

And Christians don't need rules beyond the first two commandments, although some denominations do. Ok.

And the Pope says stuff that Catholics take as the word of God, divine. Ok.

And God changed the stakes when Jesus was born, making the "rules" the Jews follow redundant, and replacing those with - Believe in me, and you'll find God and Heaven. Ok.

And I presume its actually written down somewhere that Jesus says eat what you like, don't keep the Sabbath, dont circumcise your boys, don't wear fringes or cover your heads, dont pray to me, dont sacrifice to me, dont give a 10th to charity, dont DO ANYTHING just believe. Ok.

I can see the attraction!

Just, please, out of interest, SHOW ME WHERE JESUS SAID ALL THAT.

Thanks,

TRYPHO.

[Az]

49. Well ya see you have to read between the lines

of the stuff people other than Jesus wrote about what he said decades after he supposedly existed that have been fought over and editted by different groups claiming to be the true followers of his teachings who's work has been continuously translated and shifted throught various cultural filters for the last 2000 years. Its all perfectly clear.