Making Sense Of Uncleanliness In The Bible

[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.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

What if your all taking it in the wrong sense.What i mean is that perhaps it is not about unclean/sinful but simply a health risk to others having blood everywhere, there are some practical one liners through the o.t. that aren't necessarily to do with being sinful. Like a wise man mixes his wine with water, this is practical wine de hydrates the body so mixing it with water makes it less de hydrating.

[KnightofChrist]

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.

 

Yes, that's exactly what mean. Your preconceived beliefs that "uncleanliness" carries with it an over all negative aspect has been challenged with sound reasoned and logic. Rather than say "I've never thought of it that way before, good answer." You continue along without facing the challenge. You as well as others, at least one, simply tried to ignore it and continue on with the belief that it must have some negative aspect. 

 

I believe the purpose of this thread was to show the OT in a very negative light, which is easy because many parts of it are easily misunderstood and many people today love to "hate" on the OT. I don't think you expected the response you got, and I don't believe you know how to answer it because you don't want to let go of your preexisting beliefs.
 

[KnightofChrist]

Oh dear, so many grammar typos and not a way to edit... oh well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i guess if you want to call uncleanliness a fact of life, and not "bad", i dont see how it's "good" it's at least "negative", isn't it?

negative, bad, if you don't want to call it that.... it's at least not good. i dont know what you want to call it or why, though. far as i can tell it's got to have a negative connotation. 

 

i can give credit for the "sacred" v non points that i wasnt too informed about. but all i really got beyond that was "how about we call it impure instead of unclean".  the God commanding Peter point is almost directly on point as to the real connotations, the fact that baptism is about washing sin is pretty much directly on point, the fact that Mary was baptized in no way says she was "purified" as i've ever heard it, etc. but the points were all not responded to or elaborated upon.

even like touching the Torah and needing to clean because of it... the fact you need to clean means you did somehting you shouldnt have, it's akin to be dirty and a sin. it might have an easy solution and not be considered serious, but it's still dirty. 

 

negative, bad, if you don't want to call it that.... it's at least not good.  instead of accepting the idiosyncracies etc, people would rather throw out some academic jargon that is somewhat on point, but doesn't address the deeper issues presented, and pretend that it actually does address the issue. it's like when people data dump text or a link to an academic article instead of putting the argument into the own words, cause the argument used actually doesn't solve the problem. it's psychological evasion, cognitive dissonance, etc. 

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

as said, 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. far as i can see, it's not me missing anything on the issues.