Support NeoGAF

[ReBurn]

If any churches change their stance on homosexuality it's just because of social pressure.. not sure how much clearer it can be that it's a sin.

this is where liberal/gay gaf freaks out though. It's just as much as a sin for someone to watch too much tv etc. doesn't mean they're going to hell.

I grew up in church. My parents used to send us with our grandmother every Sunday morning so that they could have some peace and quiet. There is one thing that I do know from firsthand experience: Christians should not be judging anyone according to Mosaic law.

If they are, then they don't understand the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law was to show people that no matter what they did they could never measure up on their own. The whole purpose of a savior in the Bible is to redeem imperfect people, because no matter how good they try to be it would never be good enough. They needed the sacrifice. So taking anything out of Leviticus and using it to judge the sin of another person is disingenuous for at least two reasons: First, Christians don't live under the law. Second, one person isn't qualified to judge the sin of others.

The teachings of Jesus as described in the scripture are very clear.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31)

Jesus never said to hate anyone because of their sin. Even if homosexuality were a sin, so is lying, cheating, stealing, lust, envy...one is not more bad than another. Nowhere in the Bible are sins ranked by severity. The point is that the job of a Christian is to love other people as they love themselves, Christian or not. Gay or not. Liar or not. If Christians want to judge, they first need to judge themselves.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-5)

When there's a single Christian that can say they are completely without sin, then maybe they'll be able to judge someone else. If we're talking in terms of Christianity, there's not a single human being who doesn't sin, even someone who is a Christian.

They hypocrisy that Jesus called out in the scripture is just as rampant today as it was 2,000 years ago. Christians deserve the reputation they have because they've been doing it wrong. There are some really good people who don't judge, but they're crowded out by the people with an agenda. The only way the reputation will change is if people who follow the teachings of Christ deal with them from within. But I doubt it will ever change.

 

[astroturfing]

Because the Bible states a sin is a sin and that all sins are equal in God's eyes.

If you accept the Bible as truth then the number of occurrences of a particular statement is not important

the all sins are equal thing... it is ridiculous, not a single person actually thinks like that in their daily lives. NO ONE who is sane thinks that murder is equal to stealing a loaf of bread.

people WILL grade sins (despite what a god might say/think). murder higher than stealing, stealing higher than a small lie... etc.

and since the Bible obviously says that homosexuality is a sin, people will grade it the way they feel like. some might think its a minor sin, some might think its a big enough sin to be punished by law... and all of this has and will be reflected in society. and not in good ways.

 

[Replicant]

I once knew this friend of a friend who asked me why Catholics don't do as much evangelizing or any at all in some cases. So I told her that in my case, I don't want to force someone to listen to something that is probably not in their interest to hear, especially since it's likely that they may already have their own religion/belief. In response, she told me that as Christians, we have the responsibilities to spread the gospel to those who are unfortunate to not know it. Because otherwise they're damned to go to Hell. This caused my rational alarm bell to ring so I told her that logic doesn't make any sense because it means those who are not born under Christianity will be doomed. How about those people born far away from civilization and never heard anything about Christianity? And her answer was "well, they are unfortunate".

This was about 10+ years ago, way long before I even realized that I like guys and found out the religious community's stance on it. But now that I think about it, I'm not surprised at how devoid of rationality their discussion on homosexuality (or abortion) are. Some of them basically just follow the text and whatever their pastor/priest told them. And they follow them to a T without even giving their rational thoughts a chance to voice itself. I mean, if some of them believe that those who are born without knowing Christianity will go to Hell, what chances do we have to convince them that there's nothing wrong with two consenting adult male falling for each other?

 

[ReBurn]

the all sins are equal thing... it is ridiculous, not a single person actually thinks like that in their daily lives. NO ONE who is sane thinks that murder is equal to stealing a loaf of bread.

people WILL grade sins (despite what a god might say/think). murder higher than stealing, stealing higher than a small lie... etc.

and since the Bible obviously says that homosexuality is a sin, people will grade it the way they feel like. some might think its a minor sin, some might think its a big enough sin to be punished by law... and all of this has and will be reflected in society. and not in good ways.

It's not ridiculous if you look at it in the proper context. To an omniscient, omnipresent God it could make sense that one sin is just as bad as the other. Especially if that God can't look upon any sin.

To human law and reason it is ridiculous, and society couldn't really work if stealing food was dealt with the same way as capital murder. And Christians are instructed to submit to human authority:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/submission_to_human_authority

As it is, in most western cultures where we tend to debate this kind of thing, homosexuality is not illegal. The chances of it becoming illegal are slim to none. That doesn't mean that gay people don't face challenges in terms of civil rights and equality, especially marriage equality.

Not all opposition to equal rights for gay people is based in religion. Some is, but not all. There are non-religious people who are bigoted against gay people as well. It is bigotry that will play out in society in ways that are not good.

 

[Conciliator]

If Christians are to choose what laws/stipulations in the Bible to follow or dismiss - and to be clear, I really think they should; there's a lot of nasty shit in there - then they have to accept that other Christians will be into different things for equally arbitrary reasons and those beliefs can not be invalidated with arguments like 'you do not follow the law of the bible.' Which basically turns the bible into more of a bloated suggestion box than a guidebook, much less a rule of law. Again, as an atheist, I'm totally cool with this and think that's probably the best way to do it.

I think the atheism of most non-believers is based in skepticism, science and epistemology, and therefore how hypocritical Christians(or other religious people(or atheists for that matter)) are or are not is not really relevant. I think that almost every atheist here would agree with that. How I feel about Christianity or its practitioners, or any other religion or its practitioners, or what people tell me those things are about or what they mean to them personally is not related to my atheism, regardless of rather I find it offensive, agreeable, touching, inspiring or abhorrent.

 

[JGS]

It's not ridiculous if you look at it in the proper context. To an omniscient, omnipresent God it could make sense that one sin is just as bad as the other. Especially if that God can't look upon any sin.

Technically, from God's POV, one sin is just as bad as the other in that it prohibits you from being perfect. That doesn't mean at all that the sins are equal except in the sense that sin in and of itself leads to death- generally by natural causes.

However, Scriputurally, it's pretty clear that sin was indeed graded and something could be atoned for much lesser efforts. At the same time, not being repentant over any sin is what's frowned upon the most since God is capable of forgiving any sin (Except one) if the sinner wants it to be forgiven. Heck, he's forgiven sins that weren't asked to be forgiven.

 

[Bucket Mouse]

Interesting article, CTB. It made me wonder how the author could still hold the Bible in high regard after such analysis (if they do indeed hold it in high regard). I guess I am fascinated by how somebody could locate and dissect the inconsistencies in a text and not be at all disenfranchised by it. Belief in a God unconnected to the aforementioned text- that's a position I could understand, but how could one take seriously the contradictory claims and, moreover, defend and justify them? How can a static, Holy text be updated to fit the times?

No, Christ makes distinctions on what to follow and what to cast away. I'm following His word and His teachings.

I am no expert on the Bible but considering you have posted an article that points out some of the inconsistencies therein, you must be willing to concede that some of the teachings seem outdated today. What informs the distinctions you make between relevant and irrelevant teachings? e.g. Jesus forbids divorce- is this something you agree with?

"You can't even follow your own rules. Therefore your faith is invalid. You must continue adhering to old doctrine so we can continue to mock you."

It depends on whether or not you view the Bible as a rulebook. If so, is this not a valid viewpoint? What constitutes the formation and retention of a faith if not the source of the faith? I'm genuinely interested, not trying to offend you.

 

[Chaplain]

Jesus forbids divorce- is this something you agree with?

I just wanted to clarify something. Jesus doesn't forbid divorce when people commit adultery.

“You have heard the law that says, ‘A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.’ But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.

 

[hellclerk]

This article is very well written for its audience, but there are a few things that I should probably clarify since they seem to be misrepresented within the article.

First and foremost is the mention of Romans 1:26-27. The apologist response to this passage is actually a little bit condescending. Paul was kind of an uptight guy in the first place, so really there didn't have to be any homosexuality going on at all for him to have condemned the practices of the specific Romans he was referencing. He would have (and does) opposed that kind of sexual promiscuity no matter what uglies were bumping. Keep in mind, this is the guy who basically said repent your sins, go completely chaste, and pray 'til Jesus comes back. More accurately, Paul was condemning the pagan practices of ritualized orgy and pederasty. This is nothing new within the Abrahamic tradition as the law in Leviticus basically functions in the same way, as pederastic relationships. This article really misrepresents Paul's context in this statement though, even if the ultimate conclusion is similar.

The second issue is the misrepresentation of language with this. It's apparently clear that this was written by someone without experience with the original Hebrew texts. The phrase "And he knew her" as a euphemism for sex has also been translated as "they had relations". It's simply a literal translation for what could have easily been today's "And they got it on all night long" Similarly, the use of "euphemism" for sexual organs is misrepresented. They most likely didn't have nor require technical definition for those parts of the body and basically just said "His third leg" rather than "his penis". Without the original text in front of you and the historical context for such a use of phrase you cannot determine what exactly this phrase means as far as "puritanical" and colloquial. There are a few other niggles, but that goes more into the meta of the piece, which, like I said, is fine for it's audience. Carry on.

 

[JGS]

It depends on whether or not you view the Bible as a rulebook. If so, is this not a valid viewpoint? What constitutes the formation and retention of a faith if not the source of the faith? I'm genuinely interested, not trying to offend you.

Can't speak for ChiTownBuffalo, but what goes on in a lot of religious hate threads is a mandate that we must believe as the atheist tells us since that is the accurate way.

It's annoying in that it becomes:

1. You believe in a Young Earth? Loser lol
2. You Believe in Evolution? Loser lol
3. You're not sure? Loser lol

There is literally a no win situation because many atheists on the board flat out don't like religious people (My last conversation in the vs. thread called all of us dangerous for crying out loud) and will spend inordinate amounts of time slamming them regardless of the view. It sucks but fortunately not too terribly effective.

Fortunately, this is in direct contrast to atheists that I am fortunate to meet in real life who are naive enough to think I won't be trying to inquisition them anytime soon.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I've always found Wright's commentary on scripture in regards to homosexuality/same sex relations most compelling. Sentences that are entirely in bold are the questions being asked in the interview. It addresses some of the facets of this question such as cultural influences of scripture, and Christian tolerance towards homosexuality

Interview with Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham, England
May 21, 2004

By John L. Allen, Jr.
Rome

Anglican Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright of Durham, England, is one of the world's leading scholars on the New Testament, and especially on the letters of Paul. He is also a member of the Eames Commission currently pondering the crisis within Anglicanism caused by the consecration of an openly gay bishop in the United States.

NCR interviewed Wright May 21 on the Anglican crisis, as well as on the resources the New Testament might offer to the debate in the United States over denying communion to Catholic politicians who disagree with church teaching. Wright was in Rome for a series of lectures at the Lay Centre.

There are two inter-related questions concerning the current crisis within Anglicanism. The first is a moral analysis of homosexuality, the second how one understands ecclesial communion. Let's start with the first point. One locus for the debate over homosexuality is Romans 1:26-28. How do you understand what Paul is saying?


Wright: I've written quite extensively about Romans in various places, particularly my commentary in the New Interpreter's Bible, and anything that I say should be filled in with what's there. The main thing to realize about Romans 1:26 and following is that it isn't just a side swipe out of the blue. Paul's argument at that point is grounded in the narrative of Genesis 1, 2 and 3. As often, he's referring to it obliquely, but it's there under the text. He's drawing on it at various stages. He sees the point about being human as being to reflect God's image, which he says in a number of places in his writings. He clearly sees that in Genesis 1 it is male plus female who are made in the image of God. He chooses the practice of homosexuality, not as a random feature of "look, they do all sorts of wicked things." His point is that when people in a society are part of an idolatrous system -- not necessarily that they individually are specifically committing acts of idolatry, but when the society as a whole worships that which is not the true God -- then its image-bearingness begins to deconstruct. An obvious sign of that for Paul, granted Genesis 1, is the breakup of male-female relations and the turning off in other directions. Then it's important to see how that is stitched into the argument that he mounts later on in the letter about how humankind is restored. When in chapter four he talks about Abraham, he talks about Abraham specifically did the things which in chapter one that human beings did not. In chapter one, they refused to know God, to honor God as God, to acknowledge God's power and deity, and all the rest of it. This is the end of Romans 4. The result of Abraham acknowledging God and God's power, recognizing that God had the power to do what he promised and giving God glory, which is the exact opposite word-by-word of what he said in chapter one, is that Abraham and Sarah were able to conceive children even in their old age. It's a specific reversal, the coming back together of male plus female, and then the being fruitful, which is the command of Genesis 1: "Be fruitful and multiply." This is why he can talk in Romans 5 of how in Christ, who has fulfilled the promises to Abraham, what God wanted to do through Adam has been put back on the rails.

Can you draw a straight line between what Paul understood by "homosexuality" and how we understand it?

Wright: Not a straight line, because there is no one understanding today of what constitutes homosexuality. There are many different analyses. As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato's Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention, it's already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul's today it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever … of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there. Indeed, in the modern world that isn't an invention of the 20th century either. If you read the recent literature, for example Graham Robb's book Strangers, which is an account of homosexual love in the 19th century, it offers an interesting account of all kinds of different expressions and awarenesses and phenomena. I think we have been conned by Michel Foucault into thinking that this is all a new phenomena.

So the attempt to get around Paul's language on homosexuality by suggesting that its cultural referent was different than ours doesn't work?

Wright: At any point in Paul, whether it's justification by faith or Christology or anything else, you have to say, of course this is culturally conditioned. He's speaking first century Greek, for goodness' sake. Of course you have to understand it in its context. But when you do that, it turns out to be a rich and many-sided thing. You cannot simply say, as some people have done, that in the first century homosexuality had to do with cult prostitution, and we're not talking about that, therefore it's something different. This simply won't work. So yes, it is impossible to say, we're reading this in context and that makes it different. What can you still say, of course, and many people do, is that, "Paul says x and I say y." That's an option that many in the church take on many issues. When we actually find out what Paul said, some say, "Fine, and I disagree with him." That raises all kinds of other issues about how the authority of scripture actually works in the church, and at what point the authority structure of scripture-tradition-reason actually kicks in.

Can a Christian morality rooted in scripture approve of homosexuality?

Wright: The word "homosexuality" is an abstract noun. What in the Anglican Church we've tried to do is restrict the debate to the practice of homosexual relations. Of course, many people claim to be "rooted" in scripture in a variety of ways. But if a church is actually determined to be faithful to scripture, then not only at that point but at several others -- for instance, some of our economic practices -- we would need to take a long, hard look and say, maybe we're getting this wrong.

So a Christian morality faithful to scripture cannot approve of homosexual conduct?

Wright: Correct. That is consonant with what I've said and written elsewhere.

Did you disapprove of the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson in the United States?

Wright: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that, given my membership on the Eames Commission, which is not going to be easy.

You could at least acknowledge that the consecration is problematic?

Wright: I agree with what the primates said last October at their emergency meeting, which is that the consecration, if it were to go ahead, would "tear the fabric of the communion." That was the statement of the primates last October, and I think it was clearly, almost analytically, true.

What resources does scripture offer for trying to think through the consequences for communion raised by this crisis?

Wright: Paul has some fascinating passages about living with difference within the people of God. In 1 Corinthians 8-10 and in Romans 14, he talks about being prepared to accept one another as brothers and sisters, to eat together and to worship together, despite having differences on whether to eat food offered to idols, to eat meat at all, to drink wine, to keep special holy days, etc. Many people have tried to say, there you are, Paul has this principle of tolerance, and we should simply tolerate one another within the body. There are two problems about applying that right across the board. One is that Paul himself doesn't apply it right across the board. There are many issues on which Paul says, there are no two opinions about this, this is the way it is. If people go a different route, then they are excluding themselves from the fellowship of the church and the church should ratify that.

For example?

Wright: In 1 Corinthians 5, incest. A man is living with his step-mother, and Paul says this is simply not an option. He does not say, well, some of us think this is a good thing and some of us think it's not, therefore let not the one who does judge the one who doesn't. I've sometimes hypothesized, what if someone were to say to Paul: "Well, according to your principle of love, all God's people should share their possessions with one another. Therefore, some of us in the church think that we should help this process on the way by going into our neighbors' houses and helping ourselves to whatever we fancy, thus liberating these objects from the spurious idea of possession." You can imagine someone might say, "Well, some of us believe in theft and others don't, so let's not judge one another." Paul would just say, "Sorry, this is not an option." We can think of several instances where he would say there's a line at this point. So the question is, how do you tell which things are matters indifferent and which aren't? This is a bone of contention, by the way, that goes back to the 16th century between the Anglican Church and the Roman Church. One of the foundational principles of the Anglican Church was that believing in transubstantiation ought not to be an issue of salvation and damnation. You should have flexibility about what you actually believe goes on at the Eucharist. Whereas of course the Roman Catholic Church has always said, "No, you've got to believe the whole thing."

Paul's insistence that there are limits to tolerance was the first problem. The second?

Wright: The other is that when Paul is faced with a difference of opinion, he [puts the burden on] those who take what he calls "the strong line," which is that things that might have been thought out of line are now permissible, such as eating meat offered to idols. He says that if at any point your weaker brothers and sisters, those who haven't gotten to this point yet, are being caused to stumble by what you do, you must give up that right. Of course in the present church we see the exact opposite, where people are saying, no we must drive a coach and horses through this because this is the new morality, this is the way it is now. There we're up against part of contemporary American religious mythology. It's a sort of Gnosticism, a religion of self-discovery, which makes somebody in that position almost a sort of religious hero. They've got in touch with their true self.​

 

[WascallyWabbit]

In a little-remembered statement, Jesus said, “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57). Such sovereign freedom strikes terror in the hearts of many Christians; they would rather be under law and be told what is right.

Really the crux of the matter, as a Christian myself, it makes me really sad to read this and believe it is a totally true statement.

 

[Byakuya769]

I just wanted to clarify something. Jesus doesn't forbid divorce when people commit adultery.

“You have heard the law that says, ‘A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.’ But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.

Also, the social context of this is that the man would be divorcing the women to leave her without means and to stop being required to provide for her. The written notice of divorce is basically a "get the fuck out of my house, and go be poor somewhere!" notice, given the social standing of women at that time.

 

[Bucket Mouse]

Can't speak for ChiTownBuffalo, but what goes on in a lot of religious hate threads is a mandate that we must believe as the atheist tells us since that is the accurate way.

It's annoying in that it becomes:

1. You believe in a Young Earth? Loser lol
2. You Believe in Evolution? Loser lol
3. You're not sure? Loser lol

There is literally a no win situation because many atheists on the board flat out don't like religious people (My last conversation in the vs. thread called all of us dangerous for crying out loud) and will spend inordinate amounts of time slamming them regardless of the view. It sucks but fortunately not too terribly effective.

Fortunately, this is in direct contrast to atheists that I am fortunate to meet in real life who are naive enough to think I won't be trying to inquisition them anytime soon.

The internet amplifies and depersonalises people's viewpoints on all sides. Whether or not this is a good thing is relative to which side you're on, but an atheist doesn't usually have the public forum or point of congregation that they do on here- at least compared to a Christian. That's why they're always itching for a bit of the action. It's the equivalent of religious blue balls. In real life, you'd probably have a smashing time with those very same knobhead atheists- I hear they are rather, well, mundane in normal situations. As for your atheist friends, they wish you were atheist just as you wish they were Christian (don't deny it!), it's just that everyone involved sort of realises that proper etiquette and those pesky social mores quash any fledgling debate before it gets off the ground.

The clarification and context for the divorce statement is welcome but still doesn't change the fact that it is presumptious at best, and downright fraudulent at worst. With respect, my questions still haven't been answered:

What constitutes the formation and retention of a faith if not the source of the faith (the text)? And what allows people to relativise teachings if that text is fixed and deemed Holy in nature?

 

[News Bot]

Can't speak for ChiTownBuffalo, but what goes on in a lot of religious hate threads is a mandate that we must believe as the atheist tells us since that is the accurate way.

It's annoying in that it becomes:

1. You believe in a Young Earth? Loser lol
2. You Believe in Evolution? Loser lol
3. You're not sure? Loser lol

There is literally a no win situation because many atheists on the board flat out don't like religious people (My last conversation in the vs. thread called all of us dangerous for crying out loud) and will spend inordinate amounts of time slamming them regardless of the view. It sucks but fortunately not too terribly effective.

Fortunately, this is in direct contrast to atheists that I am fortunate to meet in real life who are naive enough to think I won't be trying to inquisition them anytime soon.

To be fair "Young Earth" is complete fuckhammy nonsense. You don't spout stuff like that and expect to be treated like you are a bastion of knowledge and understanding.


I personally don't see the reasoning behind following a book which is unsourced, incomplete, contradictory, mistranslated, and with completely unknown authors writing it over a period of several centuries, with very little historical evidence to back it up.

 

[Vilix]

As far as the question of homosexuality and my faith, Matthew 7:1 has helped me quite a bit. I got my own problems to worry about.

 

[daw840]

I think I'm going to email this to my mother.

 

[Orayn]

Because the Bible states a sin is a sin and that all sins are equal in God's eyes.

If you accept the Bible as truth then the number of occurrences of a particular statement is not important

No person with any semblance of common sense would do that. Believing that a consensual same-sex relationship between two adults is morally equivalent to murder shows a complete disregard for the idea of consequentialism, and reality as a whole. I would go so far as so call it fucking insane.

 

[JGS]

The internet amplifies and depersonalises people's viewpoints on all sides. Whether or not this is a good thing is relative to which side you're on, but an atheist doesn't usually have the public forum or point of congregation that they do on here- at least compared to a Christian. In real life, you'd probably have a smashing time with those very same knobhead atheists- I hear they are rather, well, mundane in normal situations. As for your atheist friends, they wish you were atheist just as you wish they were Christian (don't deny it!), it's just that everyone involved sort of realises that proper etiquette and those pesky social mores quash any fledgling debate before it gets off the ground.

It's true about the amplification part. I always have to walk away from a discussion before it devolves to the level that I don't wish to go.

However, I do disagree with the public forum aspect. The fields that appear to be most interesting to an atheist is largely their domain and is accepted as such by most Christians. There's no way in the 21st century and outside of a literal theocracy that an atheist should feel at risk of saying anything unless they don't want an argument about it. The only place they get torn down on is when they errantly try to discuss religious belief which is without a doubt their weakest area.

What constitutes the formation and retention of a faith if not the source of the faith (the text)? And what allows people to relativise teachings if that text is fixed and deemed Holy in nature?

I don't think of this as reletivized. This is fundamentalally what belief is. It's true that if you believe based on Scripture, you should follow Scripture. The Scripture is not hard to grasp regarding any particular social issue.

However, Scripture focuses primarily on the action, not the consequence. For example, you were under the impression that divorce was not allowed. It was brought out this was not true. However, what is the punishment for having an unscriptural divorce? Who knows except that it's frowned upon and any marriage to a divorcee outside of adultery is adultery itself.

Christianity concerns itself with following the orginal recomendation. The base assumption should be that Christians would want to follow was is pretty clear to read. If they don't want to follow it, then they don't want to be Christian anyway- they just want to be a part of something.

The punishment for these particlar sins are determined by the particular religious organization and each church is different. At the end of the day God is the one who makes the actual judgement on how heinous the sin is so it's a good idea to try and pick correctly. Christianity is all about choice.

This is why it's a good idea to pick what suits you first and then raise questions from there. It's not like anything is stopping someone from leaving that religion if they view it incorrectly nor is it going to protect them from God's view on the matter. Ignorance isn't addressed in the warnings by definition.

 

[speculawyer]

What ever the Bible says about homosexuality doesn't matter to any one unless you choose to be a Christian. If you choose to do so, that is your issue.

Similarly, what the Tora, Koran, Hindu sanskrit, the Hadith, and any other "holy text" really doesn't matter either.


And none of those religious views should ever be enforced on anyone. Period.

 

[JGS]

I personally don't see the reasoning behind following a book which is unsourced, incomplete, contradictory, mistranslated, and with completely unknown authors writing it over a period of several centuries, with very little historical evidence to back it up.

That is completely your business and right to believe just as it is mine to believe you're wrong.

I'm just not sure why it matters a lick that the majority of people actually don't mind following what you say is a flawed book. if they are wrong they are going to wind up as dead as you and if they're right they gain much more and in the meantime, they are happy now. That should make even the crustiest atheist out there happy.

Seriously, the US gets much grief for all of it's religiosity, but if you can't do it in the States, that simply means you can't do it in just about anywhere else in the world. It is the epicenter for hedonism.

 

[diamondstar]

Technically, from God's POV, one sin is just as bad as the other in that it prohibits you from being perfect. That doesn't mean at all that the sins are equal except in the sense that sin in and of itself leads to death- generally by natural causes.

However, Scriputurally, it's pretty clear that sin was indeed graded and something could be atoned for much lesser efforts. At the same time, not being repentant over any sin is what's frowned upon the most since God is capable of forgiving any sin (Except one) if the sinner wants it to be forgiven. Heck, he's forgiven sins that weren't asked to be forgiven.

That is pretty much how I was taught while growing up in church. As an adult I am still having trouble wrapping my head around it.

To me it boils down to heaven or hell. Everyone is a sinner by creation. And if every sin is on the same scale, isn't it impossible to live a christian life? It's like if I curse, why not cheat on my wife while I'm at it? And since everyone is pretty much a sinner.. Who is actually going to heaven?

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding where I am at religiously.. as an adult. I grew up in church and had pretty good understanding of the word. But as I read more it's just causing me to question quite a bit about what I really think being a christian is.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

I respect religion and know a good deal about it, but at the end of the day, the amount of mental and logical gymnastics many believers have to perform to justify bat fucking insane concepts, blatant contradictions and backwards beliefs that don't adhere to any concept to what we call 'civil society' make me ultimately feel sorry for them. They have a mix of mental deficiencies and an unfortunate upbringing that earns pity and a hope for a better aimed life. The Christian/whatever the fuck is simply one who respects and loves others is the one i respect

This and the Beatitudes are the guidelines of my spiritual life

Our Lord, do not let success deceive us, nor failure take us to despair
remind us that failure is a temptation, that precedes success!
our Lord, teach us that RESPECT is the highest degree of power
and the desire for revenge... the first sign of weakness!
Our Lord, if we wrong others... teach us the strength of apology
if others wrong us, teach us the strength of forgiveness!
our Lord, if we forget you... do not forget us!

 

[hellclerk]

That is pretty much how I was taught while growing up in church. As an adult I am still having trouble wrapping my head around it.

To me it boils down to heaven or hell. Everyone is a sinner by creation. And if every sin is on the same scale, isn't it impossible to live a christian life? It's like if I curse, why not cheat on my wife while I'm at it? And since everyone is pretty much a sinner.. Who is actually going to heaven?

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding where I am at religiously.. as an adult. I grew up in church and had pretty good understanding of the word. But as I read more it just causing to question quite a bit about what I really think being a christian is.

This is easy. Do you know who "goes to heaven"? Those who repent. It's those who admit their unavoidable human faults in life. To be Christian and to live a Christian life isn't to be "perfect", it's to be human, understanding the shortcomings that come with humanity, being able to humble yourself to it. A fault is a fault, no matter what it is. The only reason one fault is seen as "lesser" than another is because of social context, but with God, there is only the fault. But God doesn't expect you not to have it, nor does he expect you to hide it. God expects you to display it in humility. Being perfect is beyond human ability, so don't expect to be perfect, but at the same time, own up to your faults and transgressions. It's the least that could be asked of you, and it's really all that's ultimately asked of you.

 

[TheNatural]

Way back when I was in school (I went to a Catholic school), there was basically no anti homosexual teaching I can remember. The only thing I remember is putting into context that the populace was small then, God wants people or procreate and spread, and that can't happen unless girls get pregnant.

My stance? The Catholic Church needs to take a neutral stance on sexual orientation. As it says in the article, there is no sex ethic in the bible. The Chruch needs to start treating this as any other neutral thing IMO, e.e., homosexuality or heterosexuality matters just as much subject wise as if you're a Nintendo or Sony fanboy. Those are my thoughts.

 

[JGS]

However, the Bible definitely has a sex ethic. In fact it gives a reason why fornication is wrong as opposed to sex.

The myth is that the Bible is against sex, but it definitely forms an opinion on the kind of sex to have. So it's within the church's right to make that a part of their teachings.

 

[TheNatural]

However, the Bible definitely has a sex ethic. In fact it gives a reason why fornication is wrong as opposed to sex.

The myth is that the Bible is against sex, but it definitely forms an opinion on the kind of sex to have. So it's within the church's right to make that a part of their teachings.

The Bible also gives you instructions on how to cook and eat meat. Safe to say that became a dated method as well:

‘Clean’ meat (kosher meat), for example, came from animals who had cloven hooves, and chewed their cud, e.g. goats and sheep.

As a rule, animals that ate grass were permitted; animals that ate flesh (lions, wolves) were not.
Permitted animals could only be eaten if they had been ritually killed by a qualified slaughterer.

Jews were not allowed to eat the blood of an animal, e.g. in sausages. In the ancient world people believed the blood of an animal contained its soul, its life- force. Jews saw this life-force as belonging to God; it was therefore unfit that they should eat it.

Fish were allowed, if they had fins and scales. Mary Magdaleneprobably came from the town of Magdala, which was a center of the dried fish industry.

Shellfish, and the scavenging creatures of the sea, such as lobsters and prawns, were unclean.

Chicken, turkey and duck were permitted. Mary and Joseph probably kept chickens in Nazareth.

Birds of prey with talons, such as eagles, were not permitted.

The point is, to siphon out what was relevant at the time or what was not understood at the time, and change with the times. Sex is like food, I guess I'm in the same boat with the dirty gays since I can drain a McDonald's sausage and biscuit or three.

 

[Mortrialus]

Jesus followed the Mosaic Law and after his death fulfilled it. So to follow him is to follow the essence of the Law which is summed up in two commandments - Love God, Love your neighbor. Christians don't have a nation so much of the Law was impossible to do and not necessary

Jesus followed Mosaic law? Would you mind citing the parts of the Bible in which Jesus killed adulterers, homosexuals and unruly children?

And also, your claim is contradicted by other parts of the Bible which state that mosaic law will be here until the end of time.

 

[amrihua]

Why do Christians care what the Old Testament has to say about homosexuality but ignore it when it comes to dietary laws? Either follow it all or ignore it all.

If you are eating bacon, it is quite hypocritical of you to be against homosexuality.

 

[ghst]

Can't speak for ChiTownBuffalo, but what goes on in a lot of religious hate threads is a mandate that we must believe as the atheist tells us since that is the accurate way.

It's annoying in that it becomes:

1. You believe in a Young Earth? Loser lol
2. You Believe in Evolution? Loser lol
3. You're not sure? Loser lol

There is literally a no win situation because many atheists on the board flat out don't like religious people (My last conversation in the vs. thread called all of us dangerous for crying out loud) and will spend inordinate amounts of time slamming them regardless of the view. It sucks but fortunately not too terribly effective.

Fortunately, this is in direct contrast to atheists that I am fortunate to meet in real life who are naive enough to think I won't be trying to inquisition them anytime soon.

they are just being polite. spout "young earth" shit at any reasonably educated person and, regardless of surface pleasantries, they will have zero respect for your opinion.

if they seem pacified, it's because your theory is so batshit insane that it's actually past the point where it's considered intellectually threatening.

 

[Raist]

Why do Christians care what the Old Testament has to say about homosexuality but ignore it when it comes to dietary laws? Either follow it all or ignore it all.

If you are eating bacon, it is quite hypocritical of you to be against homosexuality.

Cherry picking, religions' favourite hobby since ~650 BCE.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Jesus followed Mosaic law? Would you mind citing the parts of the Bible in which Jesus killed adulterers, homosexuals and unruly children?

And also, your claim is contradicted by other parts of the Bible which state that mosaic law will be here until the end of time.

Right, it's as clear as day that Jesus both says he abolishes the old law and sets the new or replaces it or fulfills it or whatever pedantic theological technicality but also that those who disregard the law of moses will go to the place of gnashing of teeth.

it's the very definition of a contradiction

 

[Monocle]

Why can't we just stick this in the first page of every Bible:

"Think critically, think for yourself, don't be a knob to other people. Here are some suggestions for how to live, some of which might be useful only if you're a member of the agrarian peasantry in the first century CE."

 

[Patriots7]

Because the Bible states a sin is a sin and that all sins are equal in God's eyes.

If you accept the Bible as truth then the number of occurrences of a particular statement is not important

You should re-read the bible. There are numerous places throughout where it implies that all sins are not equal.
Even Jesus blatantly says that not all sins are equal.

 

[Mortrialus]

You should re-read the bible. There are numerous places throughout where it implies that all sins are not equal.
Even Jesus blatantly says that not all sins are equal.

Such as the only unforgivable sin; Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[diamondstar]

This is easy. Do you know who "goes to heaven"? Those who repent. It's those who admit their unavoidable human faults in life. To be Christian and to live a Christian life isn't to be "perfect", it's to be human, understanding the shortcomings that come with humanity, being able to humble yourself to it. A fault is a fault, no matter what it is. The only reason one fault is seen as "lesser" than another is because of social context, but with God, there is only the fault. But God doesn't expect you not to have it, nor does he expect you to hide it. God expects you to display it in humility. Being perfect is beyond human ability, so don't expect to be perfect, but at the same time, own up to your faults and transgressions. It's the least that could be asked of you, and it's really all that's ultimately asked of you.

So what is repentance?

I will use myself as an example. I grew up in church, was baptized, received the holy spirit, and believe in God and Jesus died on the cross for our sins. I feel I am a good person that really puts others before himself and will go out of his way to not do any wrong upon others. Yet I curse, love to drink and party, love my fair share of porn and currently don't go to church.

Some of those sins I feel remorse about and some I don't. If I never turn away from my sins am I condemned to hell? And I know I am not supposed to judge but I see quite a few Christians that do go to church but do a few things that I would consider a sin.. What makes them better than me?

 

[MorisUkunRasik]

What I've learned from religious debates over meaning of passages is that The Bible probably isn't the best place to seek guidance on most issues.

 

[JGS]

Jesus followed Mosaic law? Would you mind citing the parts of the Bible in which Jesus killed adulterers, homosexuals and unruly children?

And also, your claim is contradicted by other parts of the Bible which state that mosaic law will be here until the end of time.

Can you cite Scriptures that indicate that most Israellites did those things? It's almost anti-Semitic to suggest that you're not really Jewish unless you started a good stoning.

It wasn't a wild west scenario and there were rules in place for carrying out judgements. Further Jesus was not a judge or a priest in relation to the Jewish nation so he had no authority. He was simply an obedient Jew whose obedience was challenged.

The majority of the Law was not punishment but requirements and Jesus followed the Law. The Last Supper was following the Law.

Finally, what Scriptures are referring to the Law being here to time indefinite? Once you find it, I'll have the follow up answer. I'm done arguing ghost statements.

The Bible also gives you instructions on how to cook and eat meat. Safe to say that became a dated method as well:




The point is, to siphon out what was relevant at the time or what was not understood at the time, and change with the times. Sex is like food, I guess I'm in the same boat with the dirty gays since I can drain a McDonald's sausage and biscuit or three.

The subject is being changed (Strawman?). Where does it say in the NT that I should concern myself with what I eat?

Serious question #1 - Is it really that difficult to discern the reasons for the difference in teachings between the OT & the NT.

Serious question #2 - Is it really that difficult to see the condemnation of particular things regardless of the OT or NT?

These aren't even hidden and so are hardly contradictory.

 

[Chaplain]

So what is repentance?

This study on 2 Corinthians 7 verses 8–10 will answer your question in great detail.

From Genesis through Revelation, God’s men came on the scene and consistently said, “Here’s the key: Repent.”

• From the steps of the ark, Noah didn’t look out at the crowd and say, “Something good is going to happen to you!” No, he said, “Repent” (Genesis 6).
• It wasn’t for saying, “I’m okay, you’re okay,” that Joel was confronted by the high priest. It was because he said, “Rend your heart. Get right. Repent” (see Joel 2:13).
• Daniel was in the lions’ den not because he said, “Inch by inch, anything’s a cinch,” but because his message was, “You have been weighed in the balance and found lacking” (see Daniel 5:27).
• Jeremiah was in the pit not for preaching, “The me I see is the me I’ll be,” but for calling a nation to repentance.
• John the Baptist lost his head not because he preached, “Smile, God loves you,” but because he told people to turn from wickedness and repent (Matthew 3:2).
• When Jesus Himself came on the scene, the first message He would bring would not be, “God loves you and so do I,” but, “Repent, the kingdom of God is among you” (see Mark 1:15).
• In the Book of Revelation, we read that the two witnesses will be killed and left lying in the streets of Jerusalem not because their message is, “God’s in His heaven and all’s right with the world,” but because, dressed in sackcloth, they will call people to repent (Revelation 11).

We need to understand that the key to unlocking the full blessing of salvation is found in repentance.

What is repentance?

It’s a word that simply means “to change direction.” In other words, if you were going to the left, you go right; if you were going down, you go up. Contrary to popular belief, repentance is not an emotion. It’s an action. Most people think repentance means feeling bad. But to repent simply means to change direction—not a quarter turn, but a total about-face.

“Godly sorrow works repentance,” Paul says, “but the sorrow of the world leads to death.”

If you go to Pelican Bay penitentiary, you’ll see people who are really sorry—sorry they robbed that bank, sorry they murdered that man. But have they repented? Not necessarily, for theirs is primarily the sorrow of the world—sorrow about being caught. That is why the lower house of one state legislature passed a bill forbidding weight-lifting in its penitentiaries. Innately realizing the lack of true repentance, legislators concluded that weight-lifting in jail produces nothing more than super criminals. Praise God, in the hearts of many inmates, there is true repentance—but in the majority of instances, such is not the case.

Paul identifies two kinds of sorrow—worldly sorrow that leads one to be hung up with guilt, and godly sorrow that leads to repentance. I believe these two types of sorrow can best be illustrated by looking at the stories of two men remarkably similar in many ways—both having left everything to follow the Rabbi from Galilee, both having walked with Him for three years. After failing on the same exact day, however, one experienced worldly sorrow that led to death; the other godly sorrow that led to repentance and salvation.…

Hung Up by Guilt

Determined to betray the One with whom he had walked daily, to whom he had listened closely, Judas cut a deal in the temple and sold his Master for thirty pieces of silver—the price of a slave. But after placing an identifying kiss on Jesus’ cheek, sorrow filled the heart of the man from Carioth—not the godly sorrow that leads to repentance, but the sorrow of the world that would culminate in his death.

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself… Matthew 27:3 (a)

Judas didn’t repent to the Lord. He repented in himself, perhaps regretting nothing more than the messiness of the situation. He took the silver to the temple and tried to return it. The priests, however, would have nothing to do with it. So Judas hurled it to the floor of the temple in an act that demanded their participation due to the fact that only the priests were allowed in the temple.

Then, after forcing the priests to deal with the blood money, this one who was hung up by guilt hanged himself on the branch of a tree.

Why?

Old Testament aw clearly prescribed that the punishment for one who bore false witness was to be the same punishment unfairly borne by the person about whom he lied (Deuteronomy 19:16–19). Therefore, knowing Jesus was about to be nailed to a tree, Judas, either intentionally or subconsciously, hanged himself on a tree.

Held Up in Glory

At the same time Judas was betraying Jesus, Peter was denying Jesus. In fact, there’s a remarkable parallel between Judas and Peter.…

• Both were called devils by Jesus.
Of Judas, Jesus said, “Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70)
And to Peter, He said, “Get thee behind me, Satan,” when Peter insisted Jesus would not die (Matthew 16:23).

• Jesus warned both Judas and Peter they would fail.
“He who dips his bread with Me will deny Me,” He said concerning Judas (see Matthew 26:23).
“Before the cock crows, you’ll deny Me thrice,” He said to Peter (see Matthew 26:34).

• Both were given opportunity to turn from their sin.
“Friend, what seekest thou?” Jesus asked Judas in the Garden of Gethsemane, thereby saying that even then He considered Judas a friend (Matthew 26:50).
And as Peter cursed in the courtyard, Jesus looked at him (Luke 22:61)—not, I believe, with a look of condemnation, but rather with a look that said, “Peter, I know what you’re doing. But remember what I told you. I’m not through with you.”

• Both repented.
Judas repented in himself (Matthew 27:3).
Peter wept bitterly (Matthew 26:75)—not a tear or two, but a deep, heaving cry.

Yet one man goes down to the bottom of the heap in the history of humanity, better for him if he hadn’t ever been born (Matthew 26:24), while the other is elevated to a position of admiration, a pattern for spiritual leadership, an inspiration to you and me.

What’s the difference?

Simply this: Judas’ repentance was the sorrow of the world that says, “Look at the mess I’m in.” Peter, on the other hand, repented to the Lord and changed direction—although not fully immediately.

On Easter Sunday, there was new hope infused in Peter. But his repentance was still incomplete, for although Peter knew Jesus was risen, due to his failure, he felt he could never again be used in ministry. That is why, in John 21, we see him returning to his old occupation as a fisherman. Others went with him and fished all night. In the morning, they saw a Figure standing on the shore.

“Children,” He called to them. I like that! He didn’t call them sinners, backsliders, or rebels. He called them children. “Have you caught anything?”

“No,” they answered—which is not surprising, since any time we return to the old pastimes, the old habits, the old ways, we always end up with nothing.

“Cast your net on the right side” He said. Why the right side? Because whatever Jesus tells us to do is always right.

Over the right side the net went, returning so full it almost sunk the boat.

At last recognizing the One on the bank as the Lord, John identified Him to Peter, who grabbed his coat and swam to shore.

After breakfasting on roasted fish and bread prepared by His hand, Peter didn’t hear Jesus say, “I’m disappointed in you. I can’t use you. I’m through with you.” No, Peter heard Jesus say, “Do you love Me, Peter? Feed My lambs. Feed My sheep. Tend My flock.”

And all the while, what did Peter have in his hand as he stood on the shore talking to Jesus? He had a wet, soggy coat, for Scripture says Peter grabbed his coat before swimming to shore (John 21:7). If you were about to go for a swim, would you grab your coat? This perplexes me—until I see Peter’s coat as an emblem of repentance.

You see, when Peter heard Jesus say, “Forget fishing. Get back to shepherding. I’m not sending you to fish in the sea. I’m telling you to feed My lambs,” Peter didn’t have to say, “Okay, Lord. Just let me get my coat out of the boat.” No, Peter had his coat in hand so he would have no reason to ever go back to the boat again.

Godly sorrow works repentance. Repentance means you don’t return for your coat.

Repentance means you rip her name out of your address book, brother. It means you go to the cupboard and throw away that which you were keeping as a little something to help your next celebration on a special occasion. It means you turn your back on the magazines or movies, people or activities you know compromise your walk.

Godly sorrow works repentance. And repentance brings salvation. Judas went down to hell. Peter went on to greatness. Both repented. One felt bad because of the mess he was in. But the other turned his back on that which held him previously, determined to walk in a totally new direction. Oh, that’s not to say Peter’s life was easy. In fact, he, too, ended up on a tree—not hung up by guilt, but crucified upside down on a cross for the sake of the One who not only hung on a tree for him, but rose and lived within him, empowering him to live a life of incredible impact and ministry.

Godly sorrow works repentance, which brings salvation never to be regretted. Paul knew this. Peter knew this.

And so can you.

 

[Mortrialus]

Can you cite Scriptures that indicate that most Israellites did those things? It's almost anti-Semitic to suggest that you're not really Jewish unless you started a good stoning.

Wow, you just called me "almost racist." I'm not really sure how to respond to that other than "Fuck you. The law is vile, unjust and completely antagonistic to any notions of happiness, deserves to be called out for being vile, unjust and completely antagonistic to any notions of happiness, and so does everyone who pays lip service to it."

 

[Soulscribe]

What ministers should be teaching believers is to stop cherry-picking a book as complex, ambiguous, layered, and historical as the Bible.

So many things deemed a "sin" in the Bible aren't considered so anymore because either 1) it was written before science helped us understand these problems, and 2) the Bible was written a long ass time ago, so certain old-fashioned beliefs (like slavery, blatant sexism, or condemning tattoos) aren't practiced anymore because we realized that we were silly for believing in them.

So people will either cherry-pick and focus on condemning homosexuality while keeping a blind eye to equally ridiculous things said in the Old Testament, or realize that this book, like ALL books, is deeply rooted in the context of its historicity and thus some elements are just not going to age well.

 

[JGS]

Wow, you just called me "almost racist." I'm not really sure how to respond to that other than "Fuck you. The law is vile, unjust and completely antagonistic to any notions of happiness, deserves to be called out for being vile, unjust and completely antagonistic to any notions of happiness, and so does everyone who pays lip service to it."

I said your statement was. It was a way of telling you it may not be the best idea to accuse a whole race/creed/nation of only negative attributes.

What ministers should be teaching believers is to stop cherry-picking a book as complex, ambiguous, layered, and historical as the Bible.

So many things deemed a "sin" in the Bible aren't considered so anymore because either 1) it was written before science helped us understand these problems, and 2) the Bible was written a long ass time ago, so certain old-fashioned beliefs (like slavery, blatant sexism, or condemning tattoos) aren't practiced anymore because we realized that we were silly for believing in them.

So people will either cherry-pick and focus on condemning homosexuality while keeping a blind eye to equally ridiculous things said in the Old Testament, or realize that this book, like ALL books, is deeply rooted in the context of its historicity and thus some elements are just not going to age well.

You realize that you just cherry picked toprove your point.

 

[Dunk#7]

What ministers should be teaching believers is to stop cherry-picking a book as complex, ambiguous, layered, and historical as the Bible.

So many things deemed a "sin" in the Bible aren't considered so anymore because either 1) it was written before science helped us understand these problems, and 2) the Bible was written a long ass time ago, so certain old-fashioned beliefs (like slavery, blatant sexism, or condemning tattoos) aren't practiced anymore because we realized that we were silly for believing in them.

So people will either cherry-pick and focus on condemning homosexuality while keeping a blind eye to equally ridiculous things said in the Old Testament, or realize that this book, like ALL books, is deeply rooted in the context of its historicity and thus some elements are just not going to age well.

Again that is the issue with looking at the book from the outside without properly understanding it is two completely separate books that are divided as such for a reason.

OT - Law
NT - Grace

You obviously have not read the book for yourself or researched it enough to understand why we no longer have to adhere to Jewish Law.

 

[Mortrialus]

I said your statement was. It was a way of telling you it may not be the best idea to accuse a whole race/creed/nation of only negative attributes.

I didn't say they only had negative attributes, though it is pretty disgusting of you to slander me by accusing me of that.

 

[Chaplain]

OT - Law
NT - Grace

I would like to add that the Law was given to show mankind how sinful we are and that everyone is guilty of breaking it.

"For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are. For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law." - Romans 3

 

[Dr. Malik]

A different lover is not a sin, believe capital H.I.M

 

[mantidor]

Serious question #1 - Is it really that difficult to discern the reasons for the difference in teachings between the OT & the NT.

Serious question #2 - Is it really that difficult to see the condemnation of particular things regardless of the OT or NT?

These aren't even hidden and so are hardly contradictory.

Explain Question #1, this is what I just understood according to your post and the one you quoted:

If its mentioned in the OT, but not in the NT, we can say it was a product of the time it was written, and we don't have to follow it.

If its mentioned in both, then is mandatory, right?

as for your question #2, it is a big deal if you have all these rules of what to apply or not to your daily life, none of them are specially explicit in the Bible, and is obvious that just quoting anything out of context is stupid, for believers and none believers, if my hypothesis is correct of course.

 

[JGS]

I didn't say they only had negative attributes, though it is pretty disgusting of you to slander me by accusing me of that.

I'm not slandering you.

You said that Jesus didn't follow the Law because he didn't kill people lol. Sorry if I misunderstood that statement.

 

[mantidor]

I would like to add that the Law was given to show mankind how sinful we are and that everyone is guilty of breaking it.

"For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are. For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on obeying the law. It is based on faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law." - Romans 3

So why even care about the law if no human will ever meet the standard, all I need to do is to believe and I will be saved, no matter what? seems awfully convenient.

 

[Dunk#7]

So why even care about the law if no human will ever meet the standard, all I need to do is to believe and I will be saved, no matter what? seems awfully convenient.

It is just that simple

Unmerited, undeserved favor and grace. We can do nothing. Jesus did it all.