Thousands of people who claim to be Christians are very vocal about their opposition to issues such as homosexuality and abortion, citing the bible as the source and explanation of their antagonism to them. Despite the loyalty to the bible these people claim to have, there are several other clearly stated rules in its text that go completely ignored in mainstream Christianity. Some argue that Christians who support homosexuality are not true Christians because they are ignoring the word of God, but one can find that almost all alleged Christians, or subscribers to any such religion, for that matter, ignore several other just as significant passages in their biblical text consistently and in their everyday lives.

Leviticus 18:22, among a few other verses, is used as an argument against homosexuality, and it reads, “And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”

Psalms 22:9-10 are used against abortion, and they read, “For you were the One drawing me forth from the belly, The one making me trust while upon the breasts of my mother./Upon you I have been thrown from the womb; from the belly of my mother you have been my God.”

What makes these verses more significant than others that condemn practices that are not viewed as controversial in contemporary society?

Leviticus 11:10-10 states that it is loathsome to eat sea creatures without scales or fins. Has anyone here ever had oysters or calamari here? The preceding and proceeding verses go on to say that rabbits, pigs, camels, ostriches, gulls, and eagles are loathsome to eat. But it adds that it’s okay to eat locusts.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says, “In case a man finds a girl, a virgin who has not been engaged, and he actually seizes her and lies down with her, and they have been found out, the man who lay down with her must also give the girl’s father fifty shekels, and she will become his wife due to the fact that he humiliated her. He will not be allowed to divorce her all his days.”

The list extends far past this. I can produce more bible quotes that aren’t conventionally recognized if asked, but my point is that the bible is used selectively as a social and political weapon. If the public is presented with an issue regarding a topic which they feel uncomfortable with, they won’t hesitate to reach for their bible, but only when the bible aligns with their beliefs do they use it to make a case against others.

Sorry I'm articulating myself so badly. It's getting late for me.

And the point of this thread is?!

I don't think anyone here doubts that christians misuse the bible to their own ends.

Even the 'true believers' among us are happy enough to accuse christians of different denominations of abusing God's Word.

The Bible was written by people, like you and me, and some of the things they mention are reflective of their time. The thing about not eating certain sea creatures was some kinda rule/tradition they had back then for whatever reason. And as times change, I would imagine rules like that change too.

*Christian dies and meets God*

God: Well, you have followed the Ten Commendments for all of your life, you've shown compassion to your fellow man, and you've had faith in Jesus, but you ate a fish without scales! Go to hell bitch!

Jesus did away with a bunch of rules when he came about. He was a reformer and set that precadent. No doubt "Christians" protesting gay funerals or beating up gay people for their sexuality are sinning, however. You're supposed to pray for sinners, not judge or threaten them.

Jesus did away with a bunch of rules when he came about. He was a reformer and set that precadent. No doubt "Christians" protesting gay funerals or beating up gay people for their sexuality are sinning, however. You're supposed to pray for sinners, not judge or threaten them.

That is very true. Yet, even though it was written by people of different time periods it was not meant to be changed. As for the eating ... Peter clearly declares all food to be a gift of the Lord and so does Paul. It does not mean that the rules of changed but that many convenants have been fulfilled. There is also the explanation that many foods back then were unhealthy and as such, were prohibited. I would like to hear some more verses that you find a problem with so that I might give you some responses. Be slow though, I can only handle so much at one time.

Jesus did away with a bunch of rules when he came about. He was a reformer and set that precadent. No doubt "Christians" protesting gay funerals or beating up gay people for their sexuality are sinning, however. You're supposed to pray for sinners, not judge or threaten them.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:17-19)

Jesus says that the Old Testament laws are binding on everyone forever.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:17-19)

Jesus says that the Old Testament laws are binding on everyone forever.

Christ was the fulfillment being spoken of, therefore the new convenant in his blood mentioned, I think, in every gospel on the night before he was betrayed. These Old Testament laws are not binding on everyone forever, read leviticus and then read acts and the epistles, this fulfillment is shown.

The Bible was written by people, like you and me, and some of the things they mention are reflective of their time. The thing about not eating certain sea creatures was some kinda rule/tradition they had back then for whatever reason. And as times change, I would imagine rules like that change too.

*Christian dies and meets God*

God: Well, you have followed the Ten Commendments for all of your life, you've shown compassion to your fellow man, and you've had faith in Jesus, but you ate a fish without scales! Go to hell bitch!

Amen. The new testament is much more relevant, although it still might need an update

You're supposed to pray for sinners, not judge or threaten them.

You're not suposed to pray for thing either. Just say the Lord's Prayer in the closet.

1 Corinthians 14:34-5

"let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation."

So what some of you are saying is that some parts of the bible cancel out other parts of the bible? I thought one of the reasons people believe the bible is the word of God is that is doesn't conflict with itself.

If certain parts can be ignored because they are "reflective of their time", why can't the whole thing be? The entire bible was written before the end of the sixteenth century.

So what some of you are saying is that some parts of the bible cancel out other parts of the bible? I thought one of the reasons people believe the bible is the word of God is that is doesn't conflict with itself.

If certain parts can be ignored because they are "reflective of their time", why can't the whole thing be? The entire bible was written before the end of the sixteenth century.

The Bible isn't the word of God and most Christians should know that. It was written by mortal people who were thought to be inspired by God.

Any hardcore Christian will tell you the Bible is perfect and all that crap. However, many reasonable Christians who actually study their faith from an objective point of view will tell you what I have said above (and I have spoken to quite a few of them). The Bible was written by people, which means what they write will be influenced by their own thoughts/beliefs as well as the thoughts/beliefs of their society.

Take the example you provided with women not being able to speak during mass. There are two options: either there really is a god and he is male and wants to put down women OR the fact that the author of that passage lived during a patriarchal time may have influenced him to write something like that.

Take the example with the diet of fish without scales. Either there is a god and for some odd reason he doesn't want people eating fish without scales OR the fact that the author of that passage lived during a time when they had certain rules concerning eating fish without scales caused him to write something like that. Also, since there are many waterways in that area, it would only make sense there would be something about fish. If the Bible were written in the middle of Siberia, I have no doubts you'd find various rules (which were thought to have come from god) about what kind of muskrats you can and can't eat.

If a Chrisitan has half a brain, they'll know that the authors of certain parts of the Bible weren't inspired by God, but were inspired by what they believed in and what the people of their time believed in. Most Christians should know that they're not supposed to take every passage literally as a lot of them will not apply to our time.

And the reason the whole Bible isn't igored is because if you were to cut the justifications (i.e. god told me to do it so I'll do it) and just paid atention to some of the teachings, you'd find a lot of them are timeless and could help you live a better life.

Kosher is Jewish. Not only that, punishments set out in Leviticus are for Jews.

Jesus set free the woman who was to be stoned for adultery. So which is more believable, Jesus condoning adultery or the old law's punishments being no longer needed?

OP, why do you tie in abortion unless you have a counterpoint?

I'm glad to see ignorance is not dead in this forum.

So if we can accept that some parts of the bible were influenced by the societies and opinions of the people writing the bible, why are some things interpreted as the indisputable word of God whereas other things are dismissed as personal opinions of the writers or only applicable to their time or location?

Is it not true that almost any statement in the bible can be seen as either a biblical principle or as a reflection of its time?

If it is okay to disregard certain assertions in the bible as an indication of the issues of their periods, who gets to decide what is the word of God and what isn't? Is the bible simply open to the interpretation of the reader? If so, what makes a Christian with a certain set of beliefs a more valid Christian than another with a separate set of beliefs?

So if we can accept that some parts of the bible were influenced by the societies and opinions of the people writing the bible, why are some things interpreted as the indisputable word of God whereas other things are dismissed as personal opinions of the writers or only applicable to their time or location?


I don't have a clear-cut answer for that. Perhaps some people regard parts of the Bible as being the inspired word of god because they can't imagine humans writing such things or making up such things. Maybe when they read about Jesus' miracles or his death and resurrection the conclusion they make is that it has to be tied in with a god because, to them, there's no other answer.


Is it not true that almost any statement in the bible can be seen as either a biblical principle or as a reflection of its time?


Possibly.


If it is okay to disregard certain assertions in the bible as an indication of the issues of their periods, who gets to decide what is the word of God and what isn't? Is the bible simply open to the interpretation of the reader? If so, what makes a Christian with a certain set of beliefs a more valid Christian than another with a separate set of beliefs?

Yes, the Bible is open to interpretation. I don't know the Church's official stance on what is supposed to be interpreted in what way but I'm guessing they're the ones who make the official decisions on stuff like this. But who's to say if their interpretation is right? Yes, many Christians will have varying viewpoints on certain parts of the Bible but again, who's to say which one is right? Anytime something can be interpreted, you're most likely gonna run into problems.

If it is okay to disregard certain assertions in the bible as an indication of the issues of their periods, who gets to decide what is the word of God and what isn't? Is the bible simply open to the interpretation of the reader? If so, what makes a Christian with a certain set of beliefs a more valid Christian than another with a separate set of beliefs?

Unless you are a Christian, you really cannot comprehend the method of divination of the Scriptures to the utmost resolution. It is not unlike a ouija board, though.

However, that is not to say that any interpretation is valid. "Thou shalt not kill" doesnt take on new menaing simply because someone desires to be a smartass.