|
On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop?
Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God?
|
On September 13 2013 03:03 Myrkskog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
I apologize if you've come across those Bible thumpers who are judgmental and condemning. + Show Spoiler +[homosexuals...] being trapped in their sin is no different than one of us being trapped in our own personal habitual sin we are called to gently help and pray for someone who has fallen into a sinful lifestyle and help them repent of it. Homosexuality is a serious offense in God's eyes, but we must not forget that it is a sin just like all the other ones Someone who sins in homosexuality is no more or less greater than the one who lies to his parents. . ..... ...... .......
You're taking that out of context. That's not me being condemning or judgmental. That's me speaking the truth. In fact, i'm equalizing that one sin is not greater than another, and therefore we have no right to put down those who are trapped in any particular sin because we are just as guilty as them. As Christians we are to love them and gently restore them; by means of restoring them to a relationship with God. If that is what you call "judgmental" then you're basically saying that Christians can not say a single word about any matter in life.
|
On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God?
With all due respect, you think* it's a sin in the eyes of God just like I think it's not the case. If your body craves something and it doesn't hurt anybody, then do it. I personally make my opinion of myself and others based on their actions on the 'real' world, not based on the irrational preferences of one God or another.
Plus if all sins are equals and Christians can't even be bothered not to wear clothes made of different types of fabric, why would homosexuals go through the massive difficulty of stifling a huge part of their personality and their urges? If Christians can't even be bothered not to work on Sundays, perhaps sins can be largely ignored as a factor when deciding whether certain human behaviors are acceptable.
|
On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God?
As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this.
At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way.
Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message.
|
On September 13 2013 03:20 Oukka wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God? As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this. At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way. Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message.
You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live.
|
On September 13 2013 03:30 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:20 Oukka wrote:On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God? As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this. At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way. Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message. You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live.
If you truly believe what you say, then you do agree with the part of Leviticus wherein God says that disobedient teenagers ought to be stoned to death. Why do you get to select the things you like? More importantly, when you bend the rules in order to answer my question, how can you believe yourself when you need to be so hypocritical to defend your doctrine?
|
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life[...]
Emphasis mine, prolly an old translation, I can't cite the exact verse but this is what the bible teaches. The wages of [insert sin here] is death. Be it being a disobedient teenager or whatever else the bible commands against, which includes homosexuality. That doesn't mean we should go around killing everybody who has sinned.
For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God
Nobody is advocating the mass-murder of the human race here.
|
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God.
|
On September 13 2013 03:39 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:30 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 03:20 Oukka wrote:On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God? As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this. At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way. Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message. You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live. If you truly believe what you say, then you do agree with the part of Leviticus wherein God says that disobedient teenagers ought to be stoned to death. Why do you get to select the things you like? More importantly, when you bend the rules in order to answer my question, how can you believe yourself when you need to be so hypocritical to defend your doctrine?
I'm defending my doctrine? So basically i'm a hypocrite because I still believe the Bible to be the Word of God? The hypocrite is you, who claims to be a Christian and then disregards the entire Bible.
|
On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God.
Even Jesus said he was coming back soon. Paul not only believes that, but he is re-affirming Jesus' words. Not everything God promises will happen in your lifetime. Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see.
When you go all the way back to the story of Joseph being made ruler of Egypt (after being sold into slavery), he told his brothers before he died that God would come back and rescue his people (Israel), and make them a great nation. This promise was not fulfilled in these brother's lifetimes, or even in the next several generations. Over the next 400 years, the Israelites fell into slavery - something that made God's promise feel less-inclined to happen. But at the right time, when the people of Israel multiplied to great numbers, that's when God stepped in and rescued Israel by using Moses.
Go back even further in time, when God told Abraham that he would make him a father of many nations. Abraham did not live to see it, but he believed by faith that God would fulfill that promise at the right time.
|
On September 13 2013 04:20 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:39 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 03:30 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 03:20 Oukka wrote:On September 13 2013 03:10 IronManSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:59 Djzapz wrote:On September 13 2013 02:41 IronManSC wrote:
In other words, leave your sinful lifestyle and pursue God. Are you saying that homosexuals should, like this woman, cease sinning? Stop being a homosexual because it is a sin? I mean I do understand that whole 'dance' where you're trying to seem open minded by loosely interpreting the bible but are you saying that homosexuals should stop? Homosexuality is a sin just like lying, coveting, committing adultery, murdering, getting drunk, and many others. It's a sin because God said so. It's the complete opposite of what God intended for love and marriage. Just because we may desire something and feel inclined to do it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, or what we ought to do because we feel we should. Our sinful nature craves the pleasures of the world, while the Spirit of God within us craves the things that we can do to please God. I, like every other man on the planet, have a desire to look at porn because that's how men are wired. We like it. Does that mean I should just do it because my body craves it? Even when I know it's a sin in the eyes of God? As a Christian who understands the God and His message as the message of love I cannot agree with this. At the time of writing the bible there was very clear secular reason, population growth, to discourage homosexuality, but that reason is not valid anymore. The bible is not written by God but my men and we should not take anything stated in it as the absolute truth. If we are to love each other as God intended (at least in my opinion) why should we tell some people that they love in a wrong way. Though if you now want to you can twist my words into supporting pedophilia or other things that I do not support at any case. But anyhow I felt the need to say this, and it is up to you interpret the message. You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live. If you truly believe what you say, then you do agree with the part of Leviticus wherein God says that disobedient teenagers ought to be stoned to death. Why do you get to select the things you like? More importantly, when you bend the rules in order to answer my question, how can you believe yourself when you need to be so hypocritical to defend your doctrine? I'm defending my doctrine? So basically i'm a hypocrite because I still believe the Bible to be the Word of God? The hypocrite is you, who claims to be a Christian and then disregards the entire Bible.
I don't claim to be a Christian. And you're not a hypocrite because you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, that would be consistent. You're a hypocrite because you only believe PART of the Bible but in truth you select the parts that you want to believe. Yet you lie to yourself and to us when you say that you actually believe the Bible to be the Word of God. You clearly don't.
If you truly thought that the Bible was the word of God, then you wouldn't disregard the parts about slave trade, beating women, stoning kids to death, killing homosexuals... If you truly thought that the Bible was the word of God, you would accuse people who work on the Sabbath of being sinful. And yet, you don't, and maybe you actually do work on Sunday - millions of Christians do. And if you told me that you are against working on Sundays, I know that you'd be lying for this argument's convenience.
Other Christians, the ones who have a more malleable view of the Bible than yours, are less hypocritical. They understand that their interpretation of the Bible is loose. Yours is loose, but you don't even acknowledge it. That's why you're a hypocrite.
|
On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God.
I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)?
The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law).
What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all?
|
On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all?
Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved.
|
On September 13 2013 03:30 IronManSC wrote:
You claim to be a Christian and then proceed to say that the Bible is not God-breathed and that it is not absolute truth? That it no longer applies to today's world and we should just do as we want as long as we respect each other's privacy? The "live and let live" philosophy is not true Christianity. If you firmly and seriously believe that the things in the Bible do not apply anymore, you should grab any Bible you have and tear out the pages that you don't agree with. John 14:15 says "if you love me you will keep my commandments." God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word. We are sinful human beings, and God not only made a way possible for us to be reconciled to Himself, but he is also giving us guidelines of how we ought to live - the way we were made to live.
About this whole issue of Bible and only following parts of it, it is a book written by men to men, (also to women, I don't want to discriminate against the better half of the people) and after that it has been edited and translated by men, and women, too. The Bible, especially the old testament, is more of a collection of laws from the various societies and peoples of the Near East than anything else. Reading the Bible like Satan reads the Bible (yes, we have a saying like that in Finland meaning taking everythin literally) is only a path to destruction and suffering.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Though the world, perspectives, and lifestyles may constantly change, God doesn't change, and neither does His Word.
Key word from your post, also in italics there (by me): guidelines
I do not say that Bible is not relevant, or not important, though. The themes, the teachings, metaphors and whatnot are why the Bible is still such a huge part of the Western world and especially Christian faith. The value of the Bible arises from the readers of it, today we understand the Word differently than someone 200 or 800 or 2800 years ago. And 20 years from now we have yet a different understanding of it. When we read something we bring our own lives, experiences and thoughts with us, and because of the world surrounding us today is so different from the world 2000 years ago we will naturally read the Bible differently.
Trying to live in the past does not work, which is my main criticism towards the Church(es) today. World has changed around the Bible, but the text itself has not changed rapidly enough that we could take word to word and expect everything to be just fine. Because of that our interpretation must change, the religion has to adapt or it will sooner or later vanish completely. For example prohibiting contraception is simply not, in my opinion at least, possible at all today. Being able to enjoy sex safely and in a way where you have the choice over your family, as in whether you want it to grow or not, is a great step forward and I cannot see any point in opposing it. Same goes for homosexuality, it will not cause extinction of the human race, or even a single people, if men who prefer men to women have an equal opportunity to express their feelings as heterosexuals do.
I could write a deal more, but not right now. I need to sleep and gather my thoughts so I hope the discussion stays alive and on high level still.
|
On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved.
Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves.
Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther.
|
On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther.
I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles.
The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept.
Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages.
On September 13 2013 04:25 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. Even Jesus said he was coming back soon. Paul not only believes that, but he is re-affirming Jesus' words. Not everything God promises will happen in your lifetime. Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see. When you go all the way back to the story of Joseph being made ruler of Egypt (after being sold into slavery), he told his brothers before he died that God would come back and rescue his people (Israel), and make them a great nation. This promise was not fulfilled in these brother's lifetimes, or even in the next several generations. Over the next 400 years, the Israelites fell into slavery - something that made God's promise feel less-inclined to happen. But at the right time, when the people of Israel multiplied to great numbers, that's when God stepped in and rescued Israel by using Moses. Go back even further in time, when God told Abraham that he would make him a father of many nations. Abraham did not live to see it, but he believed by faith that God would fulfill that promise at the right time.
Paul advises people to not bother getting married unless they really have to, because the second coming will be soon anyway. Given that we're nearly two millennia in the future and it still hasn't happened, I don't think people in Paul's time had to be not bothering to make plans for the future because the second coming would make that moot. That's in the Bible, but it's obviously not right, which is only troubling if you hold the Bible to be absolute truth and the divine word of God. If you consider it a divinely inspired document which was still subject to human error, things get a little more reasonable.
|
On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages.
That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore.
But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other.
It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to.
How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense?
|
|
|
On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense?
What do you mean by "self-serving"? Is the believer who spends his time at the soup kitchen picking and choosing as you describe?
|
On September 13 2013 06:30 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 06:26 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 06:08 ChristianS wrote:On September 13 2013 05:20 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:58 farvacola wrote:On September 13 2013 04:46 HardlyNever wrote:On September 13 2013 04:15 ChristianS wrote:
Quoting Leviticus and saying Christians are hypocrites because they don't follow it isn't going to get you that far. Christians generally consider Leviticus part of the "old law" that was to some extent replaced by the teachings of Jesus. That is, it is no longer in effect. A bit like if you called Americans hypocrites for enforcing the first amendment, but not enforcing the three-fifths compromise and counting blacks' votes as 3/5 of white votes; the three-fifths compromise is no longer in effect. That means Christians don't have to worry about wearing clothes made of different fabrics, or eating the meat of cloven-hoofed animals, or eating shellfish. That does mean that Christians who quote Leviticus to prove homosexuality's sinfulness are also being dumb, but it does not mean that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is wrong, since that condemnation is renewed a few places in the New Testament (never by Jesus himself, though).
That said, a lot of Christians like to call the Bible the absolute truth and deny that it is a man-made and therefore fallible text, even if it is divinely inspired. I don't really understand this. The New Testament has condemnations of homosexuality, but it also has condemnations of things like women speaking in church. There's a lot to do with women in the Bible that isn't very popular in modern liberal society, so Christians don't really practice it, but if the Bible were absolute truth that would have just as much force. When Paul gives his thoughts on marriage, or when Paul thinks the second coming will be soon, maybe even within his lifetime, surely that must be seen as the individual thoughts of Paul, not the divinely inspired word of God. I think what he is asking for is the justification for the picking and choosing. Why doesn't Leviticus count anymore? If God is infallible, and the Bible is his word, why is the Bible so fallible (i.e. some parts of it still "counting" and some not)? The comparison with the amendments makes no sense. The US Constitution does not claim to be an infallible document; it can be amended by the legislature. We don't follow those amendments anymore because they have been stricken from the constitution, and are no longer law (done by the repeal of those amendments through mechanisms prescribed in law). What I don't understand is how this "consensus" was reached for Leviticus no longer being a part of the "real" Bible, or why you don't have to follow it anymore. Who decided the New Testament is what counts, and the Old testament doesn't matter anymore (and what is the reasoning behind that decision)? And if that is the case, why is it even still included in the Bible at all? Just to touch on your last paragraph; that is an incredibly complex question that can only be answered through intense study of events like the Reformation and the Great Awakening. I highly recommend texts like Martin Luther's 95 Theses and Huldrych Zwingli's "The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God" if you are genuinely interested in how doctrine and biblical exegesis have evolved. Well there seems to be a lot of people in here that fancy themselves experts on the bible, so I thought one of them could explain it to, at least in a condensed version, themselves. Let's pretend I'm Catholic, so I don't care about Martin Luther. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, or I'd have specific verses to quote. But Jesus says plenty of stuff about presenting a new law which replaces the old law. The old law at that time would have been the stuff in the scriptures as they existed THEN, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Of those, Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers tend to do more storytelling, so the Old Law is usually in reference to Leviticus and Deuteronomy. For instance, Christianity throws out dietary restrictions to which Jews had always been bound. The requirement for circumcision is also removed; this is all discussed in Acts and in Paul's epistles. The idea that God's requirements of his followers changed drastically after Jesus is pretty essential to Christianity, or else Christians would still celebrate Passover and follow other Jewish traditions which are not part of the Christian heritage. The question then becomes which parts of the Old Testament are general principles which are still in effect (e.g. the Ten Commandments), and which are just cultural practices which defined the Israelites as a people, but need not define modern Christians. Most of the time anything that appears in Leviticus and not anywhere else is thrown out as old law. Deuteronomy gets some of the same treatment. Many things that appear in the Old Testament also appear in plenty of other places, though, so those tend to get kept. Of course, that only frees Christians from a lot of Old Testament requirements. As I mentioned, I think there's still plenty in the New Testament that most Christians wouldn't really support, and I don't know on what grounds somebody who claims the Bible is the direct word of God and reports absolute truth could pick and choose which of those to follow. I think the idea that women shouldn't speak in church, or the idea that women should be subservient to their husbands in a way similar to that by which their husbands are subservient to God, are sexist ideas that reflect the environment of Paul's time, not divine truths for the ages. That makes a little more sense... I guess. I still wonder why the Old Testament is kept at all, if most of it is just for stories, or things you shouldn't do anymore. But back to the picking and choosing. Like you said, even in the New Testament there is a lot of stuff most people wouldn't support today (women's lack of rights, slavery, etc), that most people don't follow, but they still follow SOME of it. How do you decide what is really a "God's guideline" and what is "just old stuff people shouldn't do anymore." Where does it make it clear that you can differentiate one from the other. It seems people pick entirely self-serving ideas. Do you hate gays? Use the Bible to justify it. Do you want to keep your wife under your control? Use the bible to justify that. But they don't follow EVERYTHING in the new testament, just the things that they want to. How do you (personally, if you are a christian) choose what you think is "god's law" (or guidelines), and what is just old nonsense? What do you mean by "self-serving"? Is the believer who spends his time at the soup kitchen picking and choosing as you describe?
What do soup kitchens have to do with my question?
The question is simple: How do you (if you are a "believer") decide what from the bible you should follow, and what you shouldn't?
If you can't follow all of it, how do you choose what you do follow, and why? I wouldn't expect the same answer from everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
