Making Sense Of Uncleanliness In The Bible

[dairygirl4u2c]

i appreciate that the fellow at the beginning of the thread was willing to say that the Jews got some things wrong.

is he also willing to say by extension that the bible isn't everything from God, not infallible? it does say that the LORD is who said the stuff. 

 

it looks like the later poster wants to stretch things, sure, those body functions are not of the sacred nature, but that doesn't mean all that was being said is that they are unsacred. they called it unclean. the fact that everything it touched needed washed etc shows the connotations are clear. 

 

should we just assume perhaps it was all unclean? or is? i dont see how Jesus' death changed anything per cleanliness or not. I guess colosians does say that Jesus cancelled out the written code and it's erquirements, nailing it to the cross. although, Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not override it. we must have to reconcile these things, as different aspects of the law, if we are to keep the bible ocnsistent.

 
this is just me trying my best to rationalize the bible verses. it seems that if it was once unclean, it always is. to be consistent. 

but, the mature response is to say as poster did, that the Jews got some things wrong, and the bible isn't always to be taken as God's truth. no one likes to say it, but the bible almost surely is not infallible. (never minding some pretty clear contradictions, another thread)

i see no other way but to say it shows a considerable amount of emotional and spiritual immaturity to just accept verses like those as God's honest truth. religion often has that affect on people, and we're all just trying to figure it out, but at a certain point, truth is truth, and there's no way around this stuff. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[mod]Image had an f-bomb in the upper left corner.  However, other than that it said "It's almost as if The Bible was written by racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, sexually frustrated men, instead of a loving God. Weird." - Ricky Gervais.    Anyhow, image is gone now due to the f-bomb, but quote remains. - BG[/mod]

[Basilisa Marie]

i appreciate that the fellow at the beginning of the thread was willing to say that the Jews got some things wrong.

is he also willing to say by extension that the bible isn't everything from God, not infallible? it does say that the LORD is who said the stuff. 

 

it looks like the later poster wants to stretch things, sure, those body functions are not of the sacred nature, but that doesn't mean all that was being said is that they are unsacred. they called it unclean. the fact that everything it touched needed washed etc shows the connotations are clear. 

 

should we just assume perhaps it was all unclean? or is? i dont see how Jesus' death changed anything per cleanliness or not. I guess colosians does say that Jesus cancelled out the written code and it's erquirements, nailing it to the cross. although, Jesus did say he came to fulfill the law, not override it. we must have to reconcile these things, as different aspects of the law, if we are to keep the bible ocnsistent.

 
this is just me trying my best to rationalize the bible verses. it seems that if it was once unclean, it always is. to be consistent. 

but, the mature response is to say as poster did, that the Jews got some things wrong, and the bible isn't always to be taken as God's truth. no one likes to say it, but the bible almost surely is not infallible. (never minding some pretty clear contradictions, another thread)

i see no other way but to say it shows a considerable amount of emotional and spiritual immaturity to just accept verses like those as God's honest truth. religion often has that affect on people, and we're all just trying to figure it out, but at a certain point, truth is truth, and there's no way around this stuff. 

 

I mean, if you want to ignore what experts in Old Testament theology think about the passage you're struggling with, be my guest.  

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont see how there's any consensus of what OT scholars thought on the matter. 

but regardless, the point they were making about sacred etc, doesn't have to do with the basic idea that it's all considered unclean.

 

and even if they saw the elements discharge not so much as unclean, cause they are part of something sacred.... they still thought the process was unclean. and anything the people touched, was unclean. they are calling what God designed, part of nature, unclean. 

it sounds like eating pork and meat in the bible.... God had to tell Peter, to counter the Jews... saying, "what God has made clean, you are not to call unclean". im sure this is the case for menstration etc, too. or how Jesus had to tell people not to cast stones at people, even though it's the OT itself commands from "God" that dictated it to begin with. 

 

and i simply see no way of getting around the clear conntations of needing to wash everything involved. 

Edited July 17, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"this is just me trying my best to rationalize the bible verses. it seems that if it was once unclean, it always is. to be consistent. 

 

or at least, even if things did change with Jesus coming, it doesn't change the fact that it was called unclean to begin with. (or that people are to be stoned, innocent people are to be killed for others' crimes, women are to be sold as property and raped and such, people are to be slaves etc etc.

[Seven77]

 It's what Basilisa said.  Jewish women would have to be ritually purified because they cooperated with life--- they were considered to be unclean meaning sacred. That is the sense of the word in this context. Father Mitch Pacwa is a Jesuit Bible scholar who explains this. He says that ritual impurity for women is exactly the same as ritual impurity for someone who touches the Torah barehanded-- you can't touch anything sacred without becoming “defiled.”

 

 if you don't understand what is written in Sacred Scripture, it's most probably because you are not reading it properly. The Bible contains passages that must be read in the light of cultural context. We should never let the difficult passages of Scripture get us down or disheartened.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Seven77

[Basilisa Marie]

i dont see how there's any consensus of what OT scholars thought on the matter. 

but regardless, the point they were making about sacred etc, doesn't have to do with the basic idea that it's all considered unclean.

 

and even if they saw the elements discharge not so much as unclean, cause they are part of something sacred.... they still thought the process was unclean. and anything the people touched, was unclean. they are calling what God designed, part of nature, unclean. 

it sounds like eating pork and meat in the bible.... God had to tell Peter, to counter the Jews... saying, "what God has made clean, you are not to call unclean". im sure this is the case for menstration etc, too. or how Jesus had to tell people not to cast stones at people, even though it's the OT itself commands from "God" that dictated it to begin with. 

 

and i simply see no way of getting around the clear conntations of needing to wash everything involved. 

 

What I'm trying to say is that the word "unclean" is a bad translation, and the reason why we get hung up on it is because it's a bad translation. The original word does not mean what we think it means. 

 

It's like when people say "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."  If an alien were reading that with a literal translation, people would think we commonly throw away babies when we bathe them, or that some people did that.  If an alien were to understand our culture and study our language, they would come to understand that we actually mean "don't throw out the good stuff when you're getting rid of the bad stuff."  

[dairygirl4u2c]

what do you propose they meant by unclean if not what we understand it as?

what evidence do you have to back that up?

don't you think that the washing of everything the folks touched, indicates that it does in fact mean unclean? what else could washing it all mean?

 

i could plausibly see, "unsacred", but the fact they had to wash and make sacrifices and that it was not a good thing, makes it seem more like it does in fact mean unclean.

[Seven77]

what do you propose they meant by unclean if not what we understand it as?

 

 1. What has been proposed by Basilisa and myself.

 

what evidence do you have to back that up?

 

2. Father Mitch, a Bible scholar, for one. What evidence do you have to refute it?

 

don't you think that the washing of everything the folks touched, indicates that it does in fact mean unclean? what else could washing it all mean?

 

3. Different contexts. Different meanings.

 

i could plausibly see, "unsacred", but the fact they had to wash and make sacrifices and that it was not a good thing, makes it seem more like it does in fact mean unclean.

 

4. Making sacrifices for something is not a bad thing… not in the least. Where is ritual purification referred to as a remedy for something referred to as explicitly bad?

 

Edited July 18, 2013 by Seven77

[Basilisa Marie]

what do you propose they meant by unclean if not what we understand it as?

what evidence do you have to back that up?

don't you think that the washing of everything the folks touched, indicates that it does in fact mean unclean? what else could washing it all mean?

 

i could plausibly see, "unsacred", but the fact they had to wash and make sacrifices and that it was not a good thing, makes it seem more like it does in fact mean unclean.

 

What I mean is what I said.  We do ritual 'cleansing' in baptism...but we don't consider baptism the same as a bath or shower, do we? No, of course not.  It's a ritual "purification."  It's the same sort of thing with the ritual cleansing.  "Unclean" means that you are in need of the ritual, not that you're dirty.  The fact that our translation of the bible says "unclean" instead of "unsacred" or something similar is a problem with the translation, not with the text.  The stuff that was touched by "unclean" people was ritually purified because others would become unclean if they touched them, because it would further confuse the boundaries between the sacred and the non-sacred.  

 

Being unclean doesn't mean you're bad.  It can - you become "unclean" if you murder someone, because you're taking away someone's life, and life is sacred.  But it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad - when Mary was "purified" after giving birth it wasn't because she was gross or evil or bad, it was a time of celebration and giving thanks to God.  

 

I have a Master's degree in theology and have taken bible classes from scholars who dedicate their whole lives to studying these texts, people who know multiple ancient languages so well that they can do their own translations of the text.  That's my evidence.  

[dairygirl4u2c]

baptism is done because we are sinful. it's not a good thing, why we have to do it in the first place. not that it's bad, baptism, but it's done cause we are sinful. 

it'd seem 'ritual purification' is just another way of saying 'cleansing'. it needs purified cause it's impure. it needs cleansed cause it's unclean. you guys haven't really established how it's not a bad thing. 

even above posted acted like 'defiled' wasn't a bad thing. maybe it's just wording issues, but he's not showing it, and i see no one else showing it.

the underlying concepts are seem clear enough. i dont know what i could be missing. 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

I mean, if you want to ignore what experts in Old Testament theology think about the passage you're struggling with, be my guest.  

 

Sometimes in a debate the victorious argument is so great that the losing argument has no clue to its demise. For example growing up I can recall my grandmother on the farm removing the heads of chickens and their bodies running, flying and flopping around. The end came so quickly the body didn't know it. Something similar has happened here, you've offered an amazing and reasoned answer that should end the debate. The other side just doesn't know it yet.
 

[HisChildForever]

If menstruation is clean, than why where a pad or tampon and dispose of it in the rubbish as if it were unclean.

 

Seriously?? Yeah, we'll just go about our days with blood seeping out our pants. Nothing to see here, move along.

[Era Might]

Sometimes in a debate the victorious argument is so great that the losing argument has no clue to its demise. For example growing up I can recall my grandmother on the farm removing the heads of chickens and their bodies running, flying and flopping around. The end came so quickly the body didn't know it. Something similar has happened here, you've offered an amazing and reasoned answer that should end the debate. The other side just doesn't know it yet.
 

 

Have you ever cut off the head of a chicken? I tried once, had the knife in my hand, but just couldn't do it. Someone else had to, someone NOT from the city lol. But that wasn't half as bad as when I attended my first pig-killing...I didn't know they were gonna bash his head in with a sledgehammer first!

Edited July 18, 2013 by Era Might

[dairygirl4u2c]

Sometimes in a debate the victorious argument is so great that the losing argument has no clue to its demise. For example growing up I can recall my grandmother on the farm removing the heads of chickens and their bodies running, flying and flopping around. The end came so quickly the body didn't know it. Something similar has happened here, you've offered an amazing and reasoned answer that should end the debate. The other side just doesn't know it yet.
 

 

i agree, sound reason and logic often cause cognitive dissonance on people's preexisting beliefs. they don't want to listen to reason, but would rather avoid the issue and/or rationalize. i'm reminded more of an ostrich who sticks his head in the sand.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"when Mary was "purified" after giving birth it wasn't because she was gross or evil or bad, it was a time of celebration and giving thanks to God"

 

i suppose you could clarify this. even Jesus was baptized. to be consistent with catholic theology, neither really needed to be baptized but seem to have done it to stay true to form. i've never heard of anyone 'purifying' mary, or Jesus. they were already pure. unless i'm not sure what you're referring to. you use this example, and much hinges on it, so it can't be as obscure as it is.  

something is okay, then it touches the sacred, then it needs purified.... because it is impure, unclean. seems pretty basic.

[Basilisa Marie]

Nah, Dairy, you're not listening to me.  I can't just repeat myself over and over again.  If you want, re-read what I've posted already, I think I was pretty clear. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i do not believe it explained the uncleanliness or impurity points, and other points. i do not believe your later responses clarified too much. i am sorry if you are unwilling or unable to continue discussion. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i suppose we could take Jesus getting baptized, or Mary. they were baptized without needing it. i would very much hesitate to say they were 'purified'. ive never heard this language used for either, and it wouldnt make too much sense if it were used. if you throw on it 'ritual purificiation'... and basically read it as 'pointless purificiation', or something like that, maybe. rituals often have little inherent meaning. my understanding of things to the jews that were 'unclean' or 'defiled' etc though, nothing like that has that meaning. like when God had to tell Peter to tell the Jews, 'what God has made clean you are not to call unclean'. in regards to pork. perhaps they didn't literally truly mean 'unclean' there and in general? that's stretching it, from everything i've ever heard about jewish concepts. 

i'm also not clear this is what debaters here are arguing, it's me doing my best to make sense of their points, and the 'uncleanliness' ideas themselves. all i see and understand the arguments and the 'uncleanliness' issues themselves, is people reasoning themselves around in circles and coming to no reasoned conclusions, just loop de loop half thoughts. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Seriously?? Yeah, we'll just go about our days with blood seeping out our pantaloons. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

 

People wipe there noses too when it's runny, otherwise snot gets every where,which can be a health risk to others.