Christians cant eat lobster, wear polyester, wear gold, eat rabbit, have tattoos, get divrced, have

I gotta laugh at this thread. How much time did you spend finding this information, then putting together this thread? It takes someone with nothing else to do and the will to want to prove a point that's going to be disregarded to put together something like this. What was the point in the end? That Christians don't follow every rule within the book that is claimed to be their Gods word? Of course they don't, us humans will always break biblical "rules" regardless, every second, minute, and hour of the day, especially the most well known, even by non-Christians, the 10 commandments. It obviously doesn't matter to you, nor does it matter to them. Let people live their lives how they see fit, you live yours, and stop wasting your time on threads people with some sense could care less about, unless you're one of the people with no sense and loves online arguments, then proceed.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Please check my posts since my O.P and please see also that the point I was making is that many Christians use the leviticus line against homosexuals and just take whatever interpretation they want.
I was not saying I believe in any of these rules and have stated since that I believe them to be taken out of historical context.

reply to post by FidelityMusic


If fundamentalist Christians did not persecute and try to stop homosexuals gaining human rights then I would let them be.
I have not started a thread about Bhudists or Sikhs. Why? Because they don't try to stop others from living how they chose.

Oh great, someone else that's read a few chapters out of the bible, and is now qualified to teach ATS Sunday school.

reply to post by b14warrior


You error in not knowing the difference in the old testament and the new testament. You can not use hebrew/jewish food laws on gentiles. The new testament clearly states homosexuality as a sin without the food bans.

reply to post by Klassified


You have totally missed the point of this thread and have not read my other posts in this thread.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by stupid girl
**yawn**.....

should't this be in the "Rant" forum?

Or maybe ATS should just go all-out and create a new "Faith Hater" forum.

It is based on the Christian religion so why shouldn't it be here?

And the OP isn't hating on the religion just pointing out things that Christians choose not to follow in their religion.

Yes, but this paradoxical, misunderstood argument has been made, and subsequently answered, ad nauseum on ATS.
Hence my **yawn** and suggestion for this being better suited for the "Rant" forum.
Personally, I see no conspiracy here. I only see misguided frustration.

People who do not read the Bible or even lend validity to the message seem to "cherry pick" things from it, then levy ill-informed accusations and ridicule at those who do.
Their argument usually including the accusation that those whom actually read the Bible are the ones who "cherry pick" things from it to include in their faith, then label them idiots, or hypocrites, or dumbasses or whatever.

It's like an infinite loop of bullsh*t that has gotten dried and crusty by the time you get back around to start the cycle again......

reply to post by murphy22


Not to mention half the other Mosaic laws you attempt to lay on Christians or gentiles. Which also was covered in the new testament, telling the Apostles not to do that to the gentile converts. Homosexual acts was however preached as a no no to the gentiles (non jews).

OP is bang on. How come all the other rules are now all of a sudden taken out of historical context or no longer apply yet the whole homosexual thing is still to be taken literally? You're all still cherry-picking. STILL. How can you not see the hypocrisy? Jeezo.

LOL old testament does not apply, there is a new covenant with Jesus Christ. Before trying to bash christians maby get all your facts right.

Originally posted by juleol
reply to post by b14warrior

 

Yet not a single christian lives according to these rules. But I guess it is okay since they can just ask Jesus for forgivance... Does not matter if you murder someone or just lie to someone as you are still accepted into heaven as long as you ask for forgivance...

Actually, this isn't correct - as one can easily verify from looking into either actual Messianic Jews (who by definition are christian, although they tend to also continuing observing the whole of mosaic law as applicable) and by others who strongly advocate adherence to the hebraic roots of the christian faith (as at www.EliYah.com).

As well, it bears clarifying that one can't live a life of sin and rest comfortably in their expectation of a get-out-of-jail-free card just by knowing they can ask for forgiveness - forgiveness requires sincere repentance, an acknowledgement of the wrongs committed, and truly turning from them (this is the point of christian baptism, dying to ones old sinful life and being raised in the sinless new life of Christ). Attempting to game the system scores no points as this isn't merely a matter of technicality, but one of true intent and application.

reply to post by stupid girl

People who do not read the Bible or even lend validity to the message seem to "cherry pick" things from it, then levy ill-informed accusations and ridicule at those who do.

Cherry pickers cherry picking at cherry pickers? Sounds fascinating.

The fact is, no one follows the Bible in its entirety. Anyone who does so is labeled a zealot and deemed to be "off their rocker", whereas anyone who cherry picks and follows only what's convenient, is deemed to be an "upstanding citizen." Christianity is used more for political or self-serving purposes, then for actual spiritual growth. Either it's used to make someone look good, or it's done so you don't burn for all of eternity. For instance, would Christians still follow Jesus if it guaranteed that you would burn for hell, even though you approve of his ways?

Christianity has developed an atrocious ego. I guess that's what I'm trying to say here.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by b14warrior

 

I am not a Christian, but I can tell you that your logic and insecurity of someones elses religion is extremely flawed!
Leviticus was from the old testament, (Torah) which was a set of laws for the Jews! NOT CHRISTIANS!
The New Testament is for the Christians!

Not sure why you have to post against someones religious beliefs if you don't yourself agree with them, and if you do, you might want to make sure that your posting is accurate!

edit on 5-8-2012 by seeker1963 because: wording

Doesn't matter if it's old or new testament God's words are absolute. If only the new testament mattered then why is the old included in the bible?

Yes, Buster, it does actually matter as there were different applications for different covenants and people. Even some of the dictates of Mosaic law were contingent on other factors (such as some only applying when there is a temple in Jerusalem, the destruction of which led to to the current synagogue system of worship and the abrogation of an entire subset of the Law until there is another jewish Temple in the holy city).

An actual familiarity with the bible would be a good starting point - the Mosaic covenant, and a good many of its strictures - was superceded by the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah, and a reading of the New Testament words of Christ as well as discussion of the apostles and dispute over doctrine in Acts will clarify for you that those in Christ are not bound by the entirety of Mosaic law - that was the hereditary covenant of those who agreed to follow and serve the god of Israel at mount Sinai, superceded as mentioned, and only applying to those who continue under it in the jewish faith (or such like-minded christians).

Christians otherwise are essentially not bound by such ceremonial and dietary restriction...essentially falling under the Noachide covenant, given the similar terms specified in Acts...as the focus of the new covenant is one primarily of intent; in essence, the spirit of the law as compared to the letter.

Granted, I'll absolutely NOT dispute the fact that christians definitely have a bad habit of picking and choosing what bits of the actual christian covenant to follow (pacifist requirements, non-judgementality, and others), but what the OP is discussing is a comparison of apples to oranges.

Take care.

Originally posted by b14warrior
reply to post by Klassified

 

You have totally missed the point of this thread and have not read my other posts in this thread.

I think I understand your point rather well. But the bible is very clear in both old and new testament that homosexuality is an abomination to God. And is therefore, a sin.

Using the old testament to beat Christians over the head is an exercise in futility. The old testament, or old covenant was completed and fulfilled. Meaning all of its requirements were met. Once that happened, God was free to make a new covenant with Israel, and the rest of the world. A covenant of grace, that didn't focus on the rule of law, but on a personal relationship with God himself. Something that wasn't possible for gentiles as gentiles under the old covenant. And not possible for Jews without the constant sacrificing of animals.

But Christians still have morals and ethics they must abide by if they care anything at all about their relationship with God. You aren't going to change the bible, and you aren't going to change their minds. You can accuse them, and persecute them all day long. They expect it.

As to your other point. The percentage of Christians who for some reason think they are under the old covenants jurisdiction is very small. Most fundamentalists understand the difference, and don't try to stone anyone who breaks those laws. But they still aren't going to approve or condone gays. They can't.

I've said it before. You can't understand Christianity from a secular perspective. You have to understand it from theirs. Which is hard to do if you have never been one.

reply to post by Klassified

I've said it before. You can't understand Christianity from a secular perspective. You have to understand it from theirs. Which is hard to do if you have never been one.

That's because looking at it from an outside perspective invites the use of logic, something that cannot be reconciled with the modernized understanding of Christianity. They use mantras and songs and repeat after the preacher for a reason: instilling a concept that otherwise has no meaning.

reply to post by Amadeo


People fail to understand the reason for Jesus dying on the cross. Under the old testament we would still have to sacrifise animals to recieve atonement for our sins. Sarifise was also a Mosaic law and had to be done. Are we breaking that law?

The apostle had a vision of "unclean animals" the lord told him to "eat". The apsotle said, "not so my lord, I am a jew and these are unclean" Then the Lord said "Take and eat. What I have cleansed let no man call common or unclean."
This was a vision relating to the gentiles being converted to the Christian faith.

A lot of the things that applied to the jews, do not apply to Christians. And would not apply to the jews if they recognized their saviour. They are the ones the bible speaks of when it says "If you live by the law. (Mosaic law) You shall die by the law.

You people nit pick what you have no understanding of. Because a book makes you uneasy or offends you. You choose to assault those that believe in the book and author of our faith.
You can at least get your facts straight before you try and use our own sword against us.

reply to post by murphy22


So then why are there direct quotes in the bible with Jesus saying to still follow the old law? Why does the new testament teach to follow the 10 commandments that came from the old testament? The claim that christians aren't supposed to follow the old law is false and a cop out to avoid living such a strict life.

reply to post by b14warrior


So you pick up a bible and there is the Old Testament. Disputed and thrown away, not to be used, but still included. Why?

Then you have the "New" Testament - so clearly the "old" one has been changed - yet much of it remains in the "New" Some things kept. Some things discarded. Clearly the Old Testament was flawed if it had to be re-written. Perhaps the New Testament is flawed also. Could it be that it too is wrong?

If God's word isn't to be taken seriously from the Old testament, why should it be in the new one? Why is some of the old testament (10 commandments) taken as God's word but other parts are not? Do christians say that God changed his mind on the Old T? How could that be? He is omniscient, right? He can't be wrong, yes? His publisher was happy as it sold more books, but how could God write a novel that needed to be re-written?

CJ

reply to post by stupid girl


A. I read the bible, not in a religious sense but have read the bible since I was young. My father read the bible to me in a non religious sense, in the same way he would read any other book as it is a damn good read with some wonderful stories.

B. I am new to ATS and although it may have been done before, I couldn't find any that raise the same points in the same manner plus is it really so wrong that I wanted to have a little discussion with some people and hear thir thoughts?
If you lambast every newb that comes on here and tries to talk about a topic that has already been discussed then you will just scare people off.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You confuse Catholicism with Christians. Not all "Cristian" churches can be grouped into one.