throwitback

> I would encourage you to read Jesus more closely

I'm just trying to hit the high points for a silly internet discussion.

> If you are sincerely interested in understanding things like the ceremonial law, civil law, moral law, Old Covenant, New Covenant, then I can point you to some excellent study guides and sermons.

Been there. I found the Skeptic's Annotated Bible was more convincing than, say, Grudem's Systematic Theology, or any of the other reading from seminary.

That's more of a "so the king won't get too distracted" commandment (as the second half of the verse indicates!) Also, the verse before is about having too many horses. When Nathan judges David, the polygamy is de minimis.

I hope you don't wear any cotton/polyester blends.

> Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. (Deut 22:11, KJV)

Most Christians I've known believe that some combination of Matt 15:11 (Jesus) and Acts 10 (Paul) mean that while the morality expoused in the original Law is forever relevant, the practical concerns (what to eat, what clothing to wear, how to handle menstruation) and the ritual concerns (sacrifice, temple practices) are no longer relevant.

So Jesus takes morality to 11, but not the other things. And according to Jesus, morality == love.

All this to say: I'm pretty comfortable with my interpretation. I'm not ignorant of the spectrum of Christian doctrine, and I feel like I'm mostly doing it justice while keeping it simple.

Loosely speaking, God/"Moses" put a bunch of rules in play for the early Israelites. Then Jesus came around and said "it's all about love." Then Paul clarified Jesus with more specific directions. So Paul > Jesus > Moses, mostly because of chronology.

Let's take gay people as an example. Moses said no, Jesus said it's all about love, and Paul said no to gay people. So even though Jesus is always right, in practice he was usually pretty vague, so Paul ends up with the overrule.

*Side note: some people believe that Paul and/or Moses were only referring to gay people in the context of pagan ritual sex, and that Jesus's "love" should take priority. I'd believe Moses was about pagan sex and Paul is non-canon if I were still Christian. This shows that there's plenty of room for interpretation. The previous paragraphs are simply the evangelical mainstream interpretation.

Edit: A cynical me would also say that interpretation depends on agenda.

If you're going to build a Raft demo, perhaps it should show strong consistency? Memcache supports compare-and-swap, so a distributed KV store speaking the memcache text protocol, and implementing a distributed CAS sounds like a great place to start!

To my knowledge, a very simple distributed CAS doesn't exist, and there are plenty of memcache clients, so I also think this might maximize the odds people use hraftd in their production environments at some point.

Perhaps a problem is that this passage tends to be the most taught marriage-related passage in the evangelical churches and para-church organizations I've attended?

One can make many cases for models of Biblical marriage (David, a "man after God's own heart" was polygamous. This is not spoken against in the Bible, but his adultery with another man's wife was condemned. To me, this is implicit support.)

One can also talk about whether Jesus himself would have supported Paul's interpretation and writings about marriage. I tend to find their respective teachings disharmonious.

Paul very much believed in the order of things, and in authority. And in this case (as in the case of master/slave relationships!), the man has authority. Both masters and husbands have obligations to use their authority kindly, but Paul did not decry the authority of one individual over another.

So yes, in the most common interpretation of evangelical Pauline Christianity (i.e. that practiced in Heartland America), the men are not bullies, but they do possess power and authority over women, and I think this power is the thing liberals and humanists take issue with.