Why do Christians pick and choose?

[Nerthus]

For example being gay is very wrong according to many Christians, because of Bible verses including that in Leviticus 18:22 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable/ an abomination' (depending on your version of the Bible), despite the fact that the original translation is unclean.

But Leviticus also mention, for example, that people should 'not let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle' (Leviticus 19:19) or 'wear clothes made of more than one fabric' (Leviticus 19:19) or shouldn't 'cut your hair nor shave'. (Leviticus 19:27).

Then there is

'Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed' (Leviticus 20:9)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people" (Leviticus 20:18)

'For generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God, No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles' (Leviticus 17-20)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

If you believe being gay is a sin and is wrong, then I also expect you to follow the rest of OT Law and not decide that as Christians you don't have to follow some of it that might affect yourself, conveniently, but believe in other parts that affect others. And, why can't people accept that there is more than one version of the Bible, and that the original translation of many words might not be exactly what is believed today?

I have asked this before and so far no one has given me a reason to believe that certain parts of the Bible are still to be follow by Christians and why other parts are left to the Jews. I am not saying that anyone is wrong, but would like to know why many Christians seem to pick and choose what is still law today.

 

[wmjbyatt]

The ministers to whom I've put the same question regarding homosexuality have sometimes told me that there are actually moments of NT law that speak out against homosexuality, or at least can be interpreted as such. I used to date a Fundamentalist Christian who understood the OT as, basically, etiological mythology that served as a historical text, but whose laws did not apply to those who had been Washed in the Blood of the Lamb. To her, the edict against homosexuality stemmed from NT law, though I'll be a poorly darned sock if I know the actual verses from which such theology is drawn.

As to the question of translation, I know that many Christians believe that a particular edition of the Bible has been, in some way, consecrated by God and is therefore the only accurate translation into the local language.

 

[PVE1]

It is important to realize that Jesus did not get into details on what is right and what is wrong. Not to the point of homosexuality at least. Christians use the Torah for their views on homosexuality. One thing to keep in mind though - most religions are against homosexuality. Whenever Christians can't find enough reasoning in the New Testament, they go to the Old Testament. I do this as well, but I'm also keen to the idea of taking aspects from other religions (as most are very similar). For example, if I see that religions such as Buddhism or Sikhism discourage homosexuality, I'm more inclined to believe that homosexuality is sexual misconduct and should be avoided.

However, you're right about a lot of Christians picking and choosing. Before I returned to the faith, I had noticed this so much and nothing irritated me more. One pattern I've noticed is that the Christians who pick and choose are the ones who have never actually opened the Bible enough to know any other method of life. As in, a man may hate a homosexual - but doesn't even realize hate in itself is a sin.

Jesus came and basically "upgraded" the Jewish law, so that's why you don't see me worrying about fabric. One more thing to mention about it though, the Torah was written only for the Jews at that time. I don't know the history or why they would have been mad about fabric, but it pertains to that time and those people alone. It wouldn't pertain to anyone non-Jew at the time, let alone today.

 

[HonestJoe]

I am not saying that anyone is wrong, but would like to know why many Christians seem to pick and choose what is still law today.

Because they've already come to a conclusion and need to bend their religion to fit those pre-conceptions.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why do Christians pick and choose?

... because it's fun...

 

[Dunemeister]

It has never been easy for the church to decide what the new covenant retains from the old. One of the principles (unevenly followed perhaps because it's not possible to carry it through perfectly well) is that there are laws that express the divine will for all peoples and times and others that have to do with the administration of the covenant for national Israel. That is, some laws are universally applicable whereas others are parochial. Once again, it's not easy to discern which laws are in either of these categories, but I don't think it's a matter of crass picking and choosing. Rather, the principles themselves are not clearly spelled out. So there's discernment involved here, a deliberate weighing things out, not arbitrary picking and choosing.

 

[Nerthus]

Once again, it's not easy to discern which laws are in either of these categories, but I don't think it's a matter of crass picking and choosing. Rather, the principles themselves are not clearly spelled out. So there's discernment involved here, a deliberate weighing things out, not arbitrary picking and choosing.

It's still the same thing. All of the Laws in the OT came form God right? He didn't say 'here have a look through these and decide what is important in your day and age, and just leave out the ones that you think aren't'.

It seems that Christians can criticise homosexuality because it's in the Bible and they don't have to change anything about themselves. Yet will wear what they like, cut their hair, leave it uncovered in Church, eat what they like, when they like - because if they followed the same laws regarding these then they would have to change something about themselves.

 

[wmjbyatt]

It's still the same thing. All of the Laws in the OT came form God right? He didn't say 'here have a look through these and decide what is important in your day and age, and just leave out the ones that you think aren't'.

It seems that Christians can criticise homosexuality because it's in the Bible and they don't have to change anything about themselves. Yet will wear what they like, cut their hair, leave it uncovered in Church, eat what they like, when they like - because if they followed the same laws regarding these then they would have to change something about themselves.

Actually, I'm not dead sure, but I BELIEVE that MOST of the OT law came from Moses. If I recall correctly--and someone with more scholarship in the matter than me can correct me--only the Ten Commandments were handed directly by God. The rest of Old Testament law came from Moses, who was given the Divine Right to rule BY God, but that means that the Mosaic law is law imposed by Moses on the Israelites to maintain social order, just with God's endorsement, so to speak, and that such law is NOT, as it were, Divine.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Actually both Romans and Corinthians have references to what could conceivable be considered homosexual practice, although this is somewhat debated among theologians...

 

[no-body]

Didn't Jesus answer this? He boiled it down to six necessary commandments plus one:

Matthew

17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbor as yourself."

20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

I can see why many people would want to desperately ignore this, though.

 

[Green Kepi]

I have asked this before and so far no one has given me a reason to believe that certain parts of the Bible are still to be follow by Christians and why other parts are left to the Jews. I am not saying that anyone is wrong, but would like to know why many Christians seem to pick and choose what is still law today.

Once Jesus died the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom...this was a sign that people now could approach God themselves thru Jesus. The Law was now void. The 613 Commandments no longer applied to Christians. There was no need for the priest to act on behalf of the people. The old Law was replaced with the Law of Christ's (Love)...which is what Matthew 5:18 is talking about...the "everything is accomplished" part was Jesus' dying on the cross. Gal. 3:16 - 19: the "seed" was Jesus...the promise "referred had come". So...Christians have nothing to "pick and Choose" from....

 

[Nerthus]

So...Christians have nothing to "pick and Choose" from....

Okay, you go tell that to the Christians who do.

 

[sandandfoam]

ReligiousGirl,
In answer to your question, I believe that Christians pick and choose because part of being human is seeing the world as we are.

 

[PVE1]

Okay, you go tell that to the Christians who do.

Sister, why are you so angry? It's fine to be critical of us Christians for being hypocrites, but anger in itself is a sin. A lot of people just won't take the time to read the scriptures, so for most its not "picking and choosing" rather its just following what they've heard.

 

[Dunemeister]

It's still the same thing. All of the Laws in the OT came form God right? He didn't say 'here have a look through these and decide what is important in your day and age, and just leave out the ones that you think aren't'.

But what if there's some indication in the NT that God's relationship with his people is changing? What we call the OT was designed to administer a national covenant where one bronze-age nation, Israel, was to play a redeeming role in the world. In the NT, "Israel" is changing into an international community. Clearly the national code of Israel is not going to apply "as is" to this new international community. But equally clearly, some of it will. Discerning which is which is not "picking and choosing" as though it's a matter of convenience. Rather it's a serious attempt to come to grips with the changes inaugurated by Jesus.

It seems that Christians can criticise homosexuality because it's in the Bible and they don't have to change anything about themselves. Yet will wear what they like, cut their hair, leave it uncovered in Church, eat what they like, when they like - because if they followed the same laws regarding these then they would have to change something about themselves.

You're right that Christians can be hypocrites, but that's not what's going on in the general practice of discerning which parts of OT law apply to Christians.

Here's how what I said earlier works out. The church has discerned that some things in the law of God given to Israel have international application and others don't. This distinction is important because the people of God have been transformed from a national entity to an international one, comprised of many nations. The prohibition against homosexual relations is universal; prohibition against eating pork is not. The former falls into a moral category; the latter into a ceremonial one. That is, such things as dietary and clothing practices were designed to seperate Israel culturally and socially from other cultures. The prohibition against homosexual relations, on the other hand, appear to apply across cultures. In the NT, however, we find an emphasis on bringing together the nations. Dietary laws create barriers, and the NT is about reducing those. Hence the emphasis on sexual ethics as normative but dietary laws (to mention just one) as not.

Once again, it's not about mere picking and choosing. Admittedly, it's difficult to make these distinctions in an absolutely clear way, and as a result, the church has been having this discussion for 2000 years. That is, it's not the case that now, in the 21st century, people have finally noticed that there is difficulty here. We've always known about it. What's changed these days is the erosion of church authority to pronounce on such things, and as a result fresh eyes and perspectives are now debating the issues. This is healthy.

 

[Nerthus]

Sister, why are you so angry? It's fine to be critical of us Christians for being hypocrites, but anger in itself is a sin. A lot of people just won't take the time to read the scriptures, so for most its not "picking and choosing" rather its just following what they've heard.

I'm not angry.

 

[Nerthus]

Dietary laws create barriers, and the NT is about reducing those. Hence the emphasis on sexual ethics as normative but dietary laws (to mention just one) as not.

I don't think the barriers that dietary laws may create are any where close to the barriers that calling homosexuality and love a sin do.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Sister, why are you so angry? It's fine to be critical of us Christians for being hypocrites, but anger in itself is a sin. A lot of people just won't take the time to read the scriptures, so for most its not "picking and choosing" rather its just following what they've heard.

Brother, why are you so presumptious? What maketh thou believeth thine eyes can read another's emotional state from interpetations of one sentence?

I'm just playin', Dude. But, I do have to say, you seem to presume a lot. What makes you think Religious Girl was being angry with her retort? Maybe her reaction was more like mine; perhaps it was confusion, not anger.

The OP seemed to be asking why some Christians seem to arbitrarily follow some teachings and instructions of the Bible, then choose to arbitrarily reject others. Green Kepi's response was that they didn't have to do so because under the new convenant Christians can go directly to God for teaching and instruction without the need of an intercessory agent.

While this information may be interesting and it may address some issues of the OP, it certainly does not answer the central question. Okay, we now have a theory proposed by one voice indicating that Christians don't need to pick and choose. But the question still remains, who do some?

There is nothing angry about this question, at least not that I find. However, like you, I am not sitting with Religious Girl at this very moment. And who knows? Maybe she is actually madder than hell and she's poking kittens with a dirty fork just to cause them pain and heartache because she's not getting complete answers to her OP. Okay, now I suppose I am being presumptious too. Plus, she doesn't really strike me as a kitten hater.

 

[Nerthus]

There is nothing angry about this question, at least not that I find. However, like you, I am not sitting with Religious Girl at this very moment. And who knows? Maybe she is actually madder than hell and she's poking kittens with a dirty fork just to cause them pain and heartache because she's not getting complete answers to her OP. Okay, now I suppose I am being presumptious too. Plus, she doesn't really strike me as a kitten hater.

I don't have kittens anyhow.

 

[cynic2005]

People pick and choose truth that is most convenient to them, while ignoring truth that is inconvenient. This happens outside religion too. In science, we call this confirmation bias, selective attention, selective memory, etc.

[youtube]7YkVtgD2R8M[/youtube]
YouTube - RELIGULOUS : Bill Maher Exposes Jeremiah Cummings