Kermit, Read your response, I'll avoid going point-for-point, because we could go on for ever, and I think I've said as much as I can on this subject. I agree with you on a couple of points, and disagree with you on others. I won't say "agree to disagree" in acknowledgement of MB, but I'll say no hard feelings, good discussion.

tame_deuces, You're mistaken about my thought process, but I can't convince you otherwise.

BTM, you're simply wrong about OT laws, the last time you were here you were insisting that people should not be eating shellfish as well. I won't argue this with you because I think your argument is disingenuous. I had this discussion in this thread if you want to sift through it.

Have you ever read any of the New Testament?

The Mosaic Law is holy, good, and spiritual (Rom. 7:12, 14). It was, however, only temporary as the book of Hebrews so clearly teaches. As such, the Mosaic Law was designed to maintain a proper relationship between God and His people Israel (blessing versus cursing), but only until the coming of Messiah and the establishment of a New Covenant. The Law was never designed to be a permanent rule of life. It was merely a tutor or guardian to guide Israel in all areas of her life until Christ (2 Cor. 3:7, 11; Gal. 3:23-24; Rom. 10:4).

https://bible.org/article/mosaic-law...-new-testament

It is simply picking and choosing the laws that you feel like following. Nothing more than that.

If you are going to rely on the Bible to tell you what god intends and what is right and wrong, then rely on it. Otherwise the claim that you are just dishonestly cherry picking the laws that you find convenient stands.

Matthew 5:17 is pretty darn clear.

The rest is just denying the laws that you find inconvenient.

festeringZit, I've not had many exchanges with you that I can recall, would you mind sharing your beliefs?

ROFL. So you cherry pick one verse. Nice.

Ephesians 2:13-15

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

Hebrews 7:18-19

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

I can't help it, I love shellfish so much that I would rather just justify my eating of it. Hope the Jews don't figure this out, or we're in trouble.

Naked,

I'm a Christian. As far as some of the views they argue about on here, I am:

- old earth
- local flood
- partial preterist
- I lean heavily towards an annihilationist position


How 'bout you?

Christian obviously, would categorize myself as born-again. As far as things which I consider important, I would say salvation through faith by grace.

Everything else is somewhat less important and interpreted differently, and are mostly things which I consider negotiable, as they don't impact your salvation.

agree 100%

Ya I hate it when people do that.
Cherry picking two verses is way better.

There is so much written and discussed on Christ fulfilling the law, that it's difficult to take someone seriously when they insist that Christians are just doing what they want by not eating shellfish and the like.

It seems like when it's convenient for such an argument, there is suddenly only one possible interpretation of the bible, one where OT laws are still in effect, but when it's not convenient, there are ample interpretations and the Christian can't confidently say what the bible means. For instance, I think the bible is clear about homosexuality being a sin. The objection is that there are different interpretations and this is not necessarily so, fine. Now, you believe OT laws are still in effect, but I think there are other interpretations, but now it's not fine, and this is necessarily wrong?

It may be wrong to leverage an argument you can't be sure of to discriminate against the interests of a group of people that can't be shown by you to be doing anything wrong.

You may consider the bible clear about homosexuality being a sin but you aren't as convinced as that that there actually is a god.

I tend to think our commitment to a particular belief should be constrained by the weakest link in the chain, if you aren't sure there is a God you'd do better to take moral positions on issues where you can identify the immorality by other means.

I think the problem is that if you throw out leviticus (in the same way you through out shellfish) the condemnations of homosexuality are MUCH less clear. There is still sodom and gomorrah, but this is hotly debated. I actually think it does have distinct homosexual overtones but OrP, for instance, disagrees. In the NT the strongest is probably Paul, which of course people have put a lot of interpretation into. It gets mentioned a few times, briefly, in a few places. Yet it is currently the number one issue in the culture wars with christians turning out in huge numbers to protest and vote against this one thing. There is an asymmetry in our reactions that is simply not matched by an asymmetry in textual analysis, even ones that put the strongest emphasis on it. It is a pretty easy guess to think that a large part of this anti gay animus doesn't just derive from textual analysis of the bible, but from an underlying anti-gay animus that is apologized for by pointing to the text here and there.

The problem (for those who want to claim bigotry) is that it is almost impossible to lock down any individual person as being a bigot. That there is this general sense seems rather "obvious", but to be able to prove that any individual actually is a bigot? This is almost never done, unless they make just far too egregious statements, statements that everyone should know how to avoid. It is rather similar to how it is "obvious" that racism is still a huge problem in america or racism is a huge problem in the republican party, but pretty hard to effectively claim that any individual republican is a racist unless they just make ridiculous egregious statements.

I dont get this.

Eating shellfish was a sin, but now its not because the OT laws arent in effect

Homosexuality was a sin, and it still is a sin, even though the OT laws arent in effect

Doesnt make much sense to me

I used homosexuality in the above example to keep with the original theme. I could just as easily use the trinity, or any other doctrine which is argued.

I believe the trinity, salvation, original sin, etc., are clearly taught, but others disagree on the basis of different interpretations, which I concede. How is it that one cannot concede that the OT laws do not have to be in effect by the same logic, especially when there is so much work dedicated to showing why this is not so?

Creating a single simple category called "sin" instead of using a more robust taxonomy that includes concepts like "unclean" is a good way to fail to understand the text.

Agree with the bolded, some people put too much effort into this, where it becomes suspicious, and I agree that some people are bigoted and use the bible to justify their position.

I still don't see how one can make the claim that Christian who eat shellfish or do not kill small woodland animals as sacrifice are only doing so because they don't want to. There is a clear argument as to why this is not so, even if you reject it, you can't keep insisting that there is only one interpretation. I'm not even trying to show why there is clear evidence to why the OT laws do not apply, I really don't need to.

I seem to recall us having this conversation in the past. I spoke about it at length in the other thread.

I understand this but that wasn't my point, my point is that you seem more certain of homosexuality being clearly immoral by the bible than you seemed convinced of god existing.

Yet it's all you have, there isn't one morally relevant fact about homosexuality that you've pointed to that would give rise to this belief that it is immoral.

ok, so eating shellfish is not a sin. Is being unclean, or doing unclean acts, a sin?

If eating shellfish was unclean, and now isnt unclean ( or is it still unclean?), then that implies that god changed its status from unclean, to clean. Can he do the same with homosexuality?

If God doesn't exist, then I concede that some things which I believe to be immoral, are actually not. Since I do believe God exists, I believe these to be immoral. I concede I cannot know God exists, but I don't see why I would reject those things that would be true if God existed. If I accept God, then I accept that which comes with God, even if I know I could be wrong to accept the first premise.

I can't prove why many things are immoral according to God. I can't describe exactly what makes abusing alcohol immoral, but I still believe it.

There seems to be no reason to think so.

One can say that this was explicitly done by Jesus:

http://biblehub.com/mark/7-19.htm

---

In theory, I suppose it might be possible. But it would really seem to me that before asking this question, one would need to establish homosexuality as "unclean."

My point was not simply an exchange of one word for another, but pointing out that conceptually you're approaching the question in a way that is destined for failure (where success is defined as reaching an understanding that is similar to those you are trying to converse with).

What do you consider immoral to mean? If you were to generalise some properties of immoral acts what would they be?

I can see why you'd consider alcohol abuse immoral, I disagree fwiw but I accept that the consequences of abusing alcohol can be. But I don't know what it is about homosexuality that is.

I definite it to mean that which is contradictory to God's law. I can't necessarily decipher why, just like those in the OT may not have known why it was wrong to follow certain rules.