Why do Christians pick and choose?

[Green Kepi]

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

Don't have to...all they need to do is read the NT about the 'New Covenant'....

 

[Dunemeister]

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.

The point is not that there are no barriers at all. The point is that in the NT, there are no racial or social barriers to covenant membership. There are, as there always have been and always will be, moral barriers. If people want to be members in good standing of the covenant community, they must uphold the ethos of the community.

Thus if one wants to be part of the community, they must be chaste, which means, among other things, refraining from sexual contact outside the context of a heterosexual, permanent marriage. It ALSO means that the community must offer support and encouragement for those who find it difficult to attain to the standard. That's part of what it means to be a community, and not merely an aggregate of individuals.

 

[Nerthus]

Thus if one wants to be part of the community, they must be chaste, which means, among other things, refraining from sexual contact outside the context of a heterosexual, permanent marriage. It ALSO means that the community must offer support and encouragement for those who find it difficult to attain to the standard. That's part of what it means to be a community, and not merely an aggregate of individuals.

A heterosexual relationship is not of a higher standard than a homosexual relationship.

If being in this community means preventing people from being happy and being with who they love, then I want nothing to do with it and am shocked that people would. But, I guess anyone who is straight wouldn't have a moral problem with this because it doesn't affect them personally.

 

[Dunemeister]

A heterosexual relationship is not of a higher standard than a homosexual relationship.

If being in this community means preventing people from being happy and being with who they love, then I want nothing to do with it and am shocked that people would. But, I guess anyone who is straight wouldn't have a moral problem with this because it doesn't affect them personally.

Well, who said anything about "higher"? I'm happy to use the word "different."

Aside from that, I don't want to get into the merits and demerits of very specific decisions made by Christian theologians as to what is retained from the Mosaic Covenant in the New Covenant. All I'm saying is that although the principles upon which these decisions are made are not fully spelled out, and of course in your case you disagree with some of them, they are not merely matters of convenience. There's a real question what the New Covenant retains from the Old, and people have put serious thought into it. The answer has fluctuated over time, and I see no reason to think that process will end. For Christians, our primary compass point is of course Jesus (but unfortunately that doesn't seem to make matters any easier).

 

[ZooGirl02]

You do realize that homosexual acts are condemned in the New Testament as well, right?

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper. They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents. They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
(Romans 1:24-32 NAB-A)

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NAB-A)

 

[Civil Conservative]

First time poster here!!

Levitical law was designed to create a nation separate from the world on God's terms. Some laws are for moral reasons, some for health reasons, but the overall reason for the 613 laws is to have a nation to survive from Moses to Jesus, despite challenges of war, not having a homeland, being put into slavery, etc.

Homosexuality is listed as a sin in the NT.

I do not see any inconsistency btw Levitical laws and how God calls us to live today. Although if you look at any individual Christian, of course one will see inconsistencies as we all are flawed.

 

[Dunemeister]

Really, Civil Conservative? No inconsistency? What should we do about sex tourism? Will a modest fine do? That's what Leviticus 19:20-22 enjoins:

If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed; but he shall bring a guilt-offering for himself to the Lord, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram as guilt-offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of guilt-offering before the Lord for his sin that he committed; and the sin he committed shall be forgiven him.

So you're saying (unwittingly to be sure) we should permit men to have female slaves, that other men, should they be caught having sex with women owned by someone else, should pay a modest fine for abusing another man's property.

It continues in Leviticus 25:44-46:

As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

So, we Christians can keep non-Christians as slaves and treat them as ancient near eastern cultures treated their slaves. That means breaking them with hard labour, beating them mercilessly, killing them if need be, selling them to other masters, breaking up their families, etc., IN PERPETUITY.

No, I for one think that there are PLENTY of inconsistencies between the Levitical law and the way of life commanded by Christ, let alone that of our modern Western conscience (which, of course, is very much indebted to our Christian heritage, however much it has got off the rails in certain ways). One cannot simply read the text of Leviticus and say "Right, that's what I'll do, then." Matters are a bit more complicated than that.

 

[Civil Conservative]

Ha! Good one, Dunemeister! Yah, I'm saying that!

There certainly would be an inconsistency if God was telling us to treat our slaves like that. (Frankly, I couldn't even keep up with the complexity of those Laws) But he isn't, he was talking to the Jewish nation for the reason of having them survive as God's chosen people and hated for it. But its not inconsistent in that God was right then, as He is right now when He communicated to us Christians more fully through the life of Jesus (& the rest of the NT).

One is meant for one people, one is meant for other people. No inconsistency. Just as Jesus didn't come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

 

[Dunemeister]

Civil Conservative,

You are moving the goalposts. This is what you said, and what I'm responding to:

"I do not see any inconsistency btw Levitical laws and how God calls us to live today. Although if you look at any individual Christian, of course one will see inconsistencies as we all are flawed."

Nothing here about a difference between how God wanted Israel to behave in one context and how he wants us to behave in ours. Quite the opposite. Apparently, if I take your words at their apparent face value, the ways of life enjoined in Leviticus are entirely consistent with those Jesus commands. So Jesus' insistence on meekness is consistent with the brutality of Leviticus? Seriously?

Of course not, which is why you moved the goalposts. All I mean to impress upon you here is that the issue isn't as simple as you are trying to make it. It's much, much messier.

 

[Reverend Rick]

***Mod Advisory***​

This is a Christian DIR ​

Non Christians can only ask respectful questions​

Christians are not allowed to debate each other​

Please post accordingly​

Reviewing Rule #10 would be helpful​

 

[Civil Conservative]

Thanks for responding Dunemeister.

That's certainly is not my purpose to move goalposts, nor do I believe I'm doing that. To me, the answer is in the nuance that comes from the God's history. In my post that you quote, the part that you don't quote is my assessment that the Levitical laws were right for the Israelites. Even if this seems brutal from our perspective. This was in response to the OP about picking and choosing particularly on homosexuality. Hope that clarifies.

At this point, I'm not clear if you are differing with me because you don't feel I've acurately stated my point, hence as I re-explain it appears like moving the goalposts. Or are you contending the broader point which is that One God made laws for the Israelites that are no longer applicable today because of the work Jesus has down. Still, I don't find any inconsistencies. Both covenants with His people were Right and Good.

 

[Civil Conservative]

It makes perfect sense to pick and choose. It would be morally and intellectually irresponsible just to take whatever your text or your authority says at face value, without qualification or exception.

However it may be said that the things Christians pick and choose reveal more about Christians than they realize.

No, I don't believe Christianity picks and chooses. Granted there are a great number of denominations that emphasis many different aspects of the Bible. However, in essense Christianity is pretty consistent.

But just a point, Christians take the Bible as its author intended.

 

[tomato1236]

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.

First of all, I would try looking to the new testament. Most Christians look there for their "picking and choosing" since the old law was fulfilled when Christ came. That means the laws of Leviticus are no longer in force, except as they exist in Christ's policies.

 

[Civil Conservative]

***Mod Advisory***​

This is a Christian DIR ​

Non Christians can only ask respectful questions​

Christians are not allowed to debate each other​

Please post accordingly​

Reviewing Rule #10 would be helpful​

OK. I will avoid this DIR as I'm having trouble understanding its purpose. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Dunemeister]

OK. I will avoid this DIR as I'm having trouble understanding its purpose. Thanks for letting me know.

Yeah, that may go for me, too.

 

[Nerthus]

OK. I will avoid this DIR as I'm having trouble understanding its purpose. Thanks for letting me know.

What's difficult to understand?

 

[Dunemeister]

OK. I will avoid this DIR as I'm having trouble understanding its purpose. Thanks for letting me know.

I guess the DIR is for non-debate discussions. If you want a debate, create a thread in the Same-Faith Debates forum, being clear which faith you have in mind.

 

[Nerthus]

Yeah, sorry I didn't want to debate the subject, it just annoyed me now many Christians seemed to pick and choose, so really wanted to know why!

 

[bowingtoGod]

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.

Most religions are in fact NOT against homosexuality. Buddhism and Sikhism being good examples.

 

[Midnight Pete]

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.

Christians are under the New Covenant (Grace of Jesus Christ). Jews were under the Old Covenant (Law of Moses). Naturally, Christians aren't obligated to fulfill all the of Mosaic Law.