Real Christianity = not being a Christian

reply to post by windword


Ah, yet more proof. Nicely delivered.

But do we have any reliable sources of what exactly happened during the Council of Nicaea? I'm rather interested to examine the official story.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by jimmiec

 

Gnostics came along after the Church had been around a while. If people are going to assert that gnostic beliefs are the original Christian beliefs, then they carry the burden of proof. Good luck with that.

Are you implying that Gnosticism arose after the death of Jesus, and became an alternative interpretation of the teachings of Jesus?

This is just untrue. Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates taught Gnostic philosophy.

Um, you've got that backwards -- Gnosticism is a religious perspective on Platonism. No one (that I know of, anyway,) disputes the fact that Gnosticism preceded Christianity by several hundred years.

And yes, Gnostic Christianity arose after the death of Jesus. Over 100 years after it, in fact.

As a matter of fact, John 1 is a complete hijack of Pythagorian teachings of sound and vibrational harmony.

Parts of John and several epistles are refutations of Gnosticism, and dualism in general, not Gnostic Christianity, which didn't exist at the time they were written. The other Gospels don't really address it, because they were written in a time when Christianity was largely limited to Jews. Once the Gentiles (particularly Greeks) began to convert, Gnosticism started to become an issue.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
But do we have any reliable sources of what exactly happened during the Council of Nicaea? I'm rather interested to examine the official story.

Here you go, knock yourself out: Council of Nicaea (AD 325) and an overview here: Catholic Encyclopedia.

reply to post by adjensen


I don't want to read anything written under the Catholic influence. I may as well ask the White House for unemployment statistics.

I'll have a look at the other, though.

Edit: I've looked at it, and now I wonder: who recorded it? And how reliable is it? How do we know there isn't more, and the rest was simply lost or hidden?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

I don't want to read anything written under the Catholic influence. I may as well ask the White House for unemployment statistics.

I'll have a look at the other, though.

How do you expect to find an accounting of a Catholic Council other than from a Catholic source? FOX News?

Even a book or website that is not Catholic is going to be citing Catholic sources for its information -- that's who was there.

reply to post by adjensen


You're just arguing semantics. Of course "Gnostic Christianity" arose after the death of Jesus, because Christianity didn't exist until after the death of Jesus. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't teach Gnostic ideals.

Also, the promotion of Christianity for the masses, through the Catholic church, denied Gnosticism from it's core beginnings, ignoring the facts that Jesus, John and Paul used Gnostic philosophy in their teachings. The Catholic church invented their own version of Christianity, not based on the teachings of Jesus, but on their own interpretations and necessities of controlling the masses. Early Canons prove this.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
who recorded it?

Catholics, who else? There was no such thing as newspapers or reporters, so there was no one there, apart from Catholics (and Arias and Constantine, neither technically a Catholic, I suppose.)

And how reliable is it? How do we know there isn't more, and the rest was simply lost or hidden?

What reason do you have to believe that it is not reliable, or that there is "more"?

No reputable historian disputes that Nicaea was about anything other than what the documents and letters demonstrate that it was -- the refutation of Arianism. Arianism means nothing to us, today, but at the time, it was a big deal, and the Council was called to deal with it.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

You're just arguing semantics. Of course "Gnostic Christianity" arose after the death of Jesus, because Christianity didn't exist until after the death of Jesus. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't teach Gnostic ideals.

If you believe that he did, kindly reconcile Christ being Jewish -- he was born a Jew, was raised a Jew, taught in the synagogues as a Rabbi and was accepted as such by the population, including some Pharisees -- with the polytheistic and dualistic Gnostic religion, completely opposed to Judaic belief, including that which Jesus taught. If he truly was the "Bringer of Gnosis" or subscribed to any Gnostic beliefs, the first thing he would have done would have been to renounce Judaism, rather than embrace it. Why didn't he?

I have been asking Gnostic proponents that question for years, and have yet to hear even a rudimentary sensible reply. You are welcome to be the first to explain it.

The Catholic church invented their own version of Christianity, not based on the teachings of Jesus, but on their own interpretations and necessities of controlling the masses. Early Canons prove this.

What "early Canons"? What does that mean?

reply to post by adjensen


First of all, Jesus didn't embrace all things Jewish. He bucked the "law" and continually did things that proved he didn't believe Jewish teachings to all be from God.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44

Gnosticism doesn't conflict with ancient Jewish teachings.

Jewish Gnosticism.
Jewish gnosticism unquestionably antedates Christianity, for Biblical exegesis had already reached an age of five hundred years by the first century C.E. Judaism had been in close contact with Babylonian-Persian ideas for at least that length of time, and for nearly as long a period with Hellenistic ideas. Magic, also, which, as will be shown further on, was a not unimportant part of the doctrines and manifestations of gnosticism, largely occupied Jewish thinkers. There is, in general, no circle of ideas to which elements of gnosticism have been traced, and with which the Jews were not acquainted. It is a noteworthy fact that heads of gnostic schools and founders of gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the Church Fathers. Some derive all heresies, including those of gnosticism, from Judaism (Hegesippus in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 22; comp. Harnack, "Dogmengesch." 3d ed. i. 232, note 1).

It must furthermore be noted that Hebrew words and names of God provide the skeleton for several gnostic systems. Christians or Jews converted from paganism would have used as the foundation of their systems terms borrowed from the Greek or Syrian translations of the Bible.

This fact proves at least that the principal elements of gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation, while it does not preclude the possibility of new wine having been poured into old bottles.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

Pre-Christian.
Cosmogonic-theological speculations, philosophemes on God and the world, constitute the substance of gnosis. They are based on the first sections of Genesis and Ezekiel, for which there are in Jewish speculation two well-established and therefore old terms: "Ma'aseh Bere#" and "Ma'aseh Merkabah." Doubtless Ben Sira was thinking of these speculations when he uttered the warning: "Seek not things that are too hard for thee, and search not out things that are above thy strength. The things that have been commanded thee, think thereupon; for thou hast no need of the things that are secret" (Ecclus. [Sirach] iii. 21-22, R. V.). The terms here emphasized recur in the Talmud in the accounts of gnosis.

reply to post by adjensen

What "early Canons"? What does that mean?

The following Canons are anti Jesus/Christ teachings. They suppress the teachings and philosophy of the teachings of Jesus and demonize Christian and Gnostic beliefs alike.

reluctant-messenger.com...

CANON XXXIV.

No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema.

CANON XXXV.

CHRISTIANS must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.

CANON XXXVI.

THEY who are of the priesthood, or of the clergy, shall not be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians, or astrologers; nor shall they make what are called amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such, we command to be cast out of the Church.

CANON XXXVII.

IT is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.

CANON XXXVIII.

IT is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.

CANON XXXIX.

IT is not lawful to feast together with the heathen, and to be partakers of their godlessness.

EDIT TO ADD:

Um, you've got that backwards -- Gnosticism is a religious perspective on Platonism.

There is more to Gnosticism than Platonism.

The teachings of Pythagoras were influential on both the Gnostic and Neoplatonic movements. The Pythagorean doctrine sharply distinguishes between thought and sense, soul and body, the mathematical form of things and their physical appearances. For the Pythagoreans, the Universe was mathematical harmony, and all phenomena were sensuous expressions of mathematical ratios. Their conception of God was as a supreme, intelligent and imperceptible spirit, pervading all Nature, and imbuing it with life. They believed in reincarnation of an immortal soul, and their system of ethics was based on the restoration of harmony out of the confusion of the senses. They recommended ascetic practices to engender the serenity and tranquility necessary to achieve perfect harmony.

hermetic.com...

reply to post by adjensen

with the polytheistic and dualistic Gnostic religion, completely opposed to Judaic belief, including that which Jesus taught

there are many features of Gnosticism that fall in line with mysticism and with many of the teachings Jesus had. Plus when Jesus came and what he taught, completely trumps and simplifies Judaism. If it weren't so, then Christians would still have to slaughter animals for sins and try and follow 800 some odd rules, including stoning adulterers and not wearing clothing that is made with mixed fibers.

If he truly was the "Bringer of Gnosis" or subscribed to any Gnostic beliefs, the first thing he would have done would have been to renounce Judaism, rather than embrace it. Why didn't he? I have been asking Gnostic proponents that question for years, and have yet to hear even a rudimentary sensible reply. You are welcome to be the first to explain it.

I can very easily explain this. If Jesus came to abolish Judaism, it would be easier to integrate into it and slowly change it, than to outright be against it. Jesus had to speak "their" language in order to get their attention and convince them to follow him.

In tons of ways he renounced Judaism, and boy am I glad. Instead of eye for an eye, it got changed to turn the other cheek. Instead of a pronounced Judaistic based nationalism, Jesus brought in Universality. Instead of classes, he taught and helped the lowest forms of human.

On top of this, you have to contend with the Gospel of Thomas, which is considered Gnostic, yet the earliest found copy is the older than any existing NT gospel. It wasn't added to the NT because it was difficult to decipher. However, these days, it more similar to Nondual philosophy, Neo-Platonism, and Buddhist philosophy in its nature. Let us keep in mind that Thomas starts with "These are the Secret Teachings of Jesus"... rightfully so since Judaism would have have destroyed anyone who isn't like them or what they believed in.

Furthermore, I myself have been inundated with Mystical Gnosis after being a regular type Christian who argued the same things you do, but then got baptised in water and by a Holy Spirit indwelling.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

First of all, Jesus didn't embrace all things Jewish. He bucked the "law" and continually did things that proved he didn't believe Jewish teachings to all be from God.

Where he is "bucking the law", it is in the invalid application of it, not the fundamental tenets of it. To the contrary, he affirms those, adamantly.

Gnosticism doesn't conflict with ancient Jewish teachings.

Jewish Gnosticism.
Jewish gnosticism unquestionably antedates Christianity, for Biblical exegesis had already reached an age of five hundred years by the first century C.E. Judaism had been in close contact with Babylonian-Persian ideas for at least that length of time, and for nearly as long a period with Hellenistic ideas. Magic, also, which, as will be shown further on, was a not unimportant part of the doctrines and manifestations of gnosticism, largely occupied Jewish thinkers.

Jesus was not a Jewish mystic, so the fact that Jewish Mysticism (Kabbalah) can find common ground with Gnosticism is of no relevance.

Rather than just citing web sites and claims that I've seen before, why not, in your own words, explain how you reconcile the monotheistic and polytheistic differences between orthodox Judaism and Gnosticism. Or explain, under mainstream Judaism, who the counterpart to God is, which dualism says exists.

What "early Canons"? What does that mean?

The following Canons are anti Jesus/Christ teachings. They suppress the teachings and philosophy of the teachings of Jesus and demonize Christian and Gnostic beliefs alike.

reluctant-messenger.com...

Um.... "reluctant-messenger.com" is a Seventh Day Adventist site, so I'm not sure that it's reasonable to take their interpretations of anything to heart

At any rate, I'm not sure what has you up in arms about those canons, it's not like the church doesn't have a right to set the expectation of behaviour on the part of its members, right? What in there goes against Jesus? And it was a couple hundred years after the emergence of Christian Gnosticism, with most evidence pointing to its steep decline prior to the time of that Council, so it's not like they hurried up and got that into the Catechism to fend off the Gnostics.

There is more to Gnosticism than Platonism.

hermetic.com...

Yes, that may well be where some of their mythos originated. But, again, so what -- what bearing does that have on any of this?

reply to post by dominicus


That's all well and good, except that Christ was not a mystic, and he most certainly did not come to "abolish Judaism". Christianity is not a "new religion", it is a sect of Judaism, and Christ specifically says that he didn't come to "abolish the Law".

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18 NIV)

In other words, Judaism still exists, and the Law still exists, for Jews. With that in mind, neither of your explanations makes any sense, sorry.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

First of all, Jesus didn't embrace all things Jewish. He bucked the "law" and continually did things that proved he didn't believe Jewish teachings to all be from God.

Where he is "bucking the law", it is in the invalid application of it, not the fundamental tenets of it. To the contrary, he affirms those, adamantly.

Jesus convinced the crowd not to stone the adulteress, thus "bucking the law. He and his apostles were criticized for not washing their hands properly and Jesus countered with the leaders not stoning unruly teenagers. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath and was unconcerned with dietary issues, claiming it isn't what goes in the mouth but what comes out. All examples of Jesus "bucking the law.

Gnosticism doesn't conflict with ancient Jewish teachings.

Jewish Gnosticism.
Jewish gnosticism unquestionably antedates Christianity, for Biblical exegesis had already reached an age of five hundred years by the first century C.E. Judaism had been in close contact with Babylonian-Persian ideas for at least that length of time, and for nearly as long a period with Hellenistic ideas. Magic, also, which, as will be shown further on, was a not unimportant part of the doctrines and manifestations of gnosticism, largely occupied Jewish thinkers.

Jesus was not a Jewish mystic, so the fact that Jewish Mysticism (Kabbalah) can find common ground with Gnosticism is of no relevance.

Jesus, most certainly was a mystic! How do you account for Jesus healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, turning water to wine and feeding the masses is not for mysticism, not to mention his "vision quest" into the dessert, meeting Satan, hob nobbing with angels and talking to the winds when he calmed the seas.

Rather than just citing web sites and claims that I've seen before, why not, in your own words, explain how you reconcile the monotheistic and polytheistic differences between orthodox Judaism and Gnosticism. Or explain, under mainstream Judaism, who the counterpart to God is, which dualism says exists.

I am neither a Jewish scholar not have I personally authored papers on the subject that we are discussing, and so, I must refer to people who are more educated, have studied and debated the issue and are respected among their colleagues. My opinions are worthless, standing alone.

What "early Canons"? What does that mean?

The following Canons are anti Jesus/Christ teachings. They suppress the teachings and philosophy of the teachings of Jesus and demonize Christian and Gnostic beliefs alike.

reluctant-messenger.com...

Um.... "reluctant-messenger.com" is a Seventh Day Adventist site, so I'm not sure that it's reasonable to take their interpretations of anything to heart

If you check out the link, you'll see it is nothing more than a lposting of the Laodicea Canons. No SDA opinion, just the Canons.

At any rate, I'm not sure what has you up in arms about those canons, it's not like the church doesn't have a right to set the expectation of behavior on the part of its members, right? What in there goes against Jesus? And it was a couple hundred years after the emergence of Christian Gnosticism, with most evidence pointing to its steep decline prior to the time of that Council, so it's not like they hurried up and got that into the Catechism to fend off the Gnostics.

If after, reading those cannons, you can't see how they contradict the very teachings of Jesus, Jewish teachings against idolatry, and condemn communion with the very angels that ministered to Jesus, saved Lot, spoke to Abraham, etc., condemn the mathematical discoveries of Pythagoras....then, I can't help you to see you own denial. They may not be anti-Catholic, but they are certainly anti-Jesus' teachings.

Just because Catholic teachings forbid and tried to filtered out Gnostic influence in the Bible and in the teachings of Jesus, doesn't mean he didn't teach them, and that they don't align with true Christianity.

There is more to Gnosticism than Platonism.

hermetic.com...

Yes, that may well be where some of their mythos originated. But, again, so what -- what bearing does that have on any of this?

You said:

If you believe that he did, kindly reconcile Christ being Jewish

You have my answer.

reply to post by adjensen

In other words, Judaism still exists, and the Law still exists, for Jews. With that in mind, neither of your explanations makes any sense, sorry.

Really? Have you seen any Jews stoning anyone lately? What about animal sacrifices? Reformed Jews even eat bacon and have cheese on their meat sandwiched nowadays.

reply to post by windword


Those laws are out of date, and people are beginning to realize that. It's not the necessity of those rules people adhere to, it's the familiarity. They only follows those rules because it's tradition; as far as necessity goes, this world has developed enough that the dangers that inspired those rules no longer exist.

So isn't it our choice if we decide to be traditional? Necessity is the only idea that trumps practicality, and since necessity obviously isn't a factor anymore, the resistance of practicality no longer makes any sense. Simply put, we followed an impractical tradition because the consequences were gruesome. We need no longer fear the consequences, so we need no longer live with impractical tradition.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

First of all, Jesus didn't embrace all things Jewish. He bucked the "law" and continually did things that proved he didn't believe Jewish teachings to all be from God.

Where he is "bucking the law", it is in the invalid application of it, not the fundamental tenets of it. To the contrary, he affirms those, adamantly.

Jesus convinced the crowd not to stone the adulteress, thus "bucking the law.

And how did he convince them not to stone the adulteress? By telling them "you're not supposed to stone adulterers"? Or by showing how they were wrong in themselves and had no right to judge her?

He and his apostles were criticized for not washing their hands properly and Jesus countered with the leaders not stoning unruly teenagers. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath and was unconcerned with dietary issues, claiming it isn't what goes in the mouth but what comes out. All examples of Jesus "bucking the law.

Those are all examples of Christ pointing out areas where Jewish slavishness to aspects of the Law that had nothing to do with their relationship to God was getting in the way of that relationship.

Jesus was not a Jewish mystic, so the fact that Jewish Mysticism (Kabbalah) can find common ground with Gnosticism is of no relevance.

Jesus, most certainly was a mystic! How do you account for Jesus healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, turning water to wine and feeding the masses is not for mysticism, not to mention his "vision quest" into the dessert, meeting Satan, hob nobbing with angels and talking to the winds when he calmed the seas.

Seriously? C'mon, I'm a Christian -- he was God, not a magician. Personally, I don't believe that anyone could do any of that stuff without being God.

If you check out the link, you'll see it is nothing more than a lposting of the Laodicea Canons. No SDA opinion, just the Canons.

Well, there's a bunch of commentary at the top of the page, and some "extra" books added to #60 that aren't really there.

If after, reading those cannons, you can't see how they contradict the very teachings of Jesus, Jewish teachings against idolatry, and condemn communion with the very angels that ministered to Jesus, saved Lot, spoke to Abraham, etc., condemn the mathematical discoveries of Pythagoras....then, I can't help you to see you own denial. They may not be anti-Catholic, but they are certainly anti-Jesus' teachings.

#34 is against worshiping non-Christian saints and ignoring Christian ones. Don't see a problem with that.

#35 is against worshiping angels. Don't see a problem with that.

#36 ... well, who hasn't wanted to condemn a math teacher or three? Actually, according to this page, mathematicians in this context refers to astrology. Don't see a problem with that.

#37 - #39 are against associating with Jews or heathen and partake in their impiety. While rude, by most standards, once again, this was a different society, and it is not unreasonable.

Just because Catholic teachings forbid and tried to filtered out Gnostic influence in the Bible and in the teachings of Jesus, doesn't mean he didn't teach them, and that they don't align with true Christianity.

You said:

If you believe that he did, kindly reconcile Christ being Jewish

You have my answer.

How does saying that Gnosticism has anything to do with Pythagorus answer that question?

In other words, Judaism still exists, and the Law still exists, for Jews. With that in mind, neither of your explanations makes any sense, sorry.

Really? Have you seen any Jews stoning anyone lately? What about animal sacrifices? Reformed Jews even eat bacon and have cheese on their meat sandwiched nowadays.

What does that have to do with anything? Just because they don't follow the Law doesn't mean it no longer exists.

reply to post by adjensen

#36 ... well, who hasn't wanted to condemn a math teacher or three? Actually, according to this page, mathematicians in this context refers to astrology. Don't see a problem with that.

Just like telling your child not to play with fire. Astrology is information, information is power, and mankind has shown it isn't the most reliable with power.

#37 - #39 are against associating with Jews or heathen and partake in their impiety. While rude, by most standards, once again, this was a different society, and it is not unreasonable.

Then why is the rest still valid, considering ALL of those rules come from a different society?

What does that have to do with anything? Just because they don't follow the Law doesn't mean it no longer exists.

The moment we entered the new millennium, all of those laws should have become obsolete, considering they were a code designed for a civilization that was technology and intellectually undeveloped. They were worse than third world. So why should those standards continue to be upheld when we are no longer those people, this nation is not that nation, this era is not that era, and all of the dangers of those days no longer exist for us?

Just as the laws of our country have changed to better suit a changing world, so should those laws as well. Either that, or abandon them completely. I don't see how they do much good, considering how restrictive and oppressive they are.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

First of all, Jesus didn't embrace all things Jewish. He bucked the "law" and continually did things that proved he didn't believe Jewish teachings to all be from God.

Where he is "bucking the law", it is in the invalid application of it, not the fundamental tenets of it. To the contrary, he affirms those, adamantly.

Jesus convinced the crowd not to stone the adulteress, thus "bucking the law.

And how did he convince them not to stone the adulteress? By telling them "you're not supposed to stone adulterers"? Or by showing how they were wrong in themselves and had no right to judge her?

What difference does it make how or why? He was ignoring certain laws, and the pharisees called him on it.

He and his apostles were criticized for not washing their hands properly and Jesus countered with the leaders not stoning unruly teenagers. Jesus healed people on the Sabbath and was unconcerned with dietary issues, claiming it isn't what goes in the mouth but what comes out. All examples of Jesus "bucking the law.

Those are all examples of Christ pointing out areas where Jewish slavishness to aspects of the Law that had nothing to do with their relationship to God was getting in the way of that relationship.

Still, he was "bucking" the system that they held as "law."

Jesus was not a Jewish mystic, so the fact that Jewish Mysticism (Kabbalah) can find common ground with Gnosticism is of no relevance.

Jesus, most certainly was a mystic! How do you account for Jesus healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, turning water to wine and feeding the masses is not for mysticism, not to mention his "vision quest" into the dessert, meeting Satan, hob nobbing with angels and talking to the winds when he calmed the seas.

Seriously? C'mon, I'm a Christian -- he was God, not a magician. Personally, I don't believe that anyone could do any of that stuff without being God.

Jesus taught Jewish mysticism. In my opinion, Jesus believed that the Torah had become corrupt, and he was "reteaching" it in it's originality.

You may enjoy some of the lectures of Stan Tenen, on Jewish mysticism and the Torah. His stuff is very interesting, and it might be enjoyable to you.



However, I know that you are loathe to watch videos, so here's a link to his foundation, which contains some very heady papers on Jewish mysticism, and mytical Hebrew traditions.
www.meru.org...

If you check out the link, you'll see it is nothing more than a lposting of the Laodicea Canons. No SDA opinion, just the Canons.

Well, there's a bunch of commentary at the top of the page, and some "extra" books added to #60 that aren't really there.

Oh, sorry about that, when I click on the link it takes me to the middle of the page, go figure, and I didn't see or pay attention to anything other that the original cannons.

I'm not going to argue with you, cannon by cannon, how absurdly unchristian these cannons are, I think that would belong in another thread, at any rate.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
#37 - #39 are against associating with Jews or heathen and partake in their impiety. While rude, by most standards, once again, this was a different society, and it is not unreasonable.

Then why is the rest still valid, considering ALL of those rules come from a different society?

Because the others are religious laws, these are cultural.

Just as the laws of our country have changed to better suit a changing world, so should those laws as well. Either that, or abandon them completely.

What makes you think that they haven't? Do you think that there are still prohibitions against mathematicians? Or having dinner with Jews?

These are laws from the year 364AD -- they weren't created from Vatican II, for pete's sakes.