How do you decide which parts of the Bible to follow and which to ignore? Or in other words, which Christian sect do you belong to?
LOL… sect 
I don’t belong to a denomination. I belong to a group of guys called New Covenant Ministries (who started in South Africa) and who read the bible and try to follow it the best they can. The leadership is set up in a similar way to what the apostles had going on, or as best they can make out they did.
I decide to follow all parts of the bible.
LOL…nobody follows all parts of the Bible-it is literally impossible.
Does you sect have a website I could check on?
Nope. What makes you think it’s impossible?
Wherever did you get this ludicrous notion that the OT is not available in the original Hebrew?
If you follow both Testaments as you say, do you follow the proscriptions against eating pork and shellfish? Do you eat cheeseburgers? Do you wear cotten blends? Do you do any work on the sabbath? Do you believe that anyone who does work on the sabbath should be killed. Are you married? If so, do you avoid all contact with your wife when she menstruates? Do you pray with phylacteries?
Reactor–
I’d say I’m honored by your attention, but the sarcasm would be a little too thick for this forum. Given that, I’d like you to give a thorough reply to gobear’s earlier question, which I found nicely incisive; namely, why is it all right to ignore the Mosaic laws against eating ham and shellfish, but not the law against male homosexual acts, given that the Hebrew word used to prohibit these things is the same?
Just to make sure that gobear wasn’t completely wrong about this (although I doubt he was), I’m going to check my own Hebrew-English copy of the Bible. For the record, the edition is the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) Hebrew-English Tanakh, published in 1999. It’s not the Christian Bible, no, but it’s the same text that the Christians refer to as the Old Testament.
Checking reveals that he’s wrong on the details: the word is not to’ebah when referring to what foods are kosher but sheketz. The words mean the same thing, but maybe there’s some subtle difference between the two that I’m not catching. Fair enough; I won’t use the dietary restrictions as examples here. However, to’ebah shows up elsewhere:
The word used is to’ebah. According to the Bible, it is abhorrent (or an abomination, whichever translation you prefer) for an Israeli to dine with an Egyptian in the same way that it is abhorrent for a man to have sex with a man.
Women who wear pants are being “abhorrent” in the same way men who have sex with each other are, according to that passage.
If a woman gets divorced, but later, having either divorced again or been widowed, marries her first husband, then this is, again, “abhorrent” in the same way that male homosexual acts are.
So what gives? Why aren’t you decrying women who wear pants as vigorously as you do men who have sex with other men? That’s my one question.
You don’t get to use Sodom and Gomorrah as a quick and easy answer to this one, either. As has been noted earlier in this thread, their sins weren’t homosexuality but selfishness and inhospitality. Makes sense to me; in most ancient societies, hospitality was a crucial part of morality. It was certainly a crucial part of the morality of the ancient Israelites:
This is one of the core statements of Jewish faith. I can definitely see how the God that commanded this would destroy a city for being continually and relentlessly inhospitable and arrogant. For the record, here’s why (according to the Bible) God destroyed Sodom:
There. That’s my question, and I’ll repeat it once more: the same word is used to condemn male homosexual acts and the wearing of pants by women. Why do you condemn the former and ignore the latter?
I got the ludicrous notion from the knowledge that before the Codex Leningradensis a standarized text had been created between 132-35. I’m not 110% clear on all of the details, but my point was that while we do have accurate greek to work from (for the home studier) reading off the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia isn’t going to give us a perfect reference to work from (not that anything is, but close to that).
“do you follow the proscriptions against eating pork and shellfish?”
No. Why should I? Do you understand the relationship between the old and new covenant?
I’ll be back to answer your question in a moment,
ConnieS, if that’s okay.
Nice piece of work, Connie, but if Reactor is true to form, he will avoid answering your questions and tell you to read the Bible. This seems to be his standard tactic when he gets in a tight spot.
Why don’t you explain it to us, Reactor? Tell us exactly how you can both obey every single part of the Bible while at the same time choose the parts you wish to follow?
we also have accurate Hebrew to work from. Where did you get the notion that the Hebrew in the Leningrad Codex is not ancient Hebrew?
You said before that the old covenant was still valid, no matter, we can agree that it is not if you wish. So it is also agreed that OT proscriptions against homosexuality can now be dismissed?
Oh, and I thought you followed the whole Bible. Now you’re saying you don’t. Which is it?
I don’t have tactics, Diogenes. Who do you think I am… some military commander or something?
“Where did you get the notion that the Hebrew in the Leningrad Codex is not ancient Hebrew?”
From a guy named Paul D Wegner.
Relax Diogenes. I’ll answer (hopefully) all of you inability to find things out for yourself in a small amount of time. I just went and got lunch (it’s that time of day for me) and will soon write up all the info your itching ears have been waiting to hear 
That is, the answer to Connie’s question.
Firstly, the mythology of the universe being a battle ground between good and evil was apparantly adopted by the Jews during the Babylonian Exile. Secondly, the way Christians have twisted the character of Satan to be their necessary “evil” god so as to make the idea of an atonement necessary. Read Elaine Pagels’ book The Origin of Satan for an excellent account of how Christianity did this.
**
I think is is a semantic quibble, I still believe it’s a flawed view of human nature.
**
Thank you for proving my point on this. Evidently people who practice Christianity your way (or God’s way or whatever) put me on the same moral level as a murder. All the more reason to not associate with them.
**
It’s every interesting that you’re able to tell from a few lines I post on a msg. board that my ecstatic experience some 23 years in the past was “false.” Do you know any good card tricks?
**
Yup, that’s precisely my point. People have a choice in which religion can practice. If they feel that Christianity is unsuitable to them, they can practice something else, beside Atheism, despite what Christians have been saying for at least 900 years.
**Freyr…[/b}
I didn’t say you were a murderer, or liken your activities to being one, or say you were morally like one. I pointed out that when you said “…but I’m not going to belong to a religion who won’t accept me for what I am.” I was pointing out that there are reasons in life why we don’t accept everyone for who they are, or what they do.
If you misunderstood that one so badly, it’s no wonder you don’t want to be a part of anything.
" It’s every interesting that you’re able to tell from a few lines I post on a msg. board that my ecstatic experience some 23 years in the past was “false.”"
Maybe if you mentioned the reason you were born-again (other than it being an “ecstatic experience” (which has nothing to do with salvation at all), I might have more reason to believe you. I don’t know man, I’m not God. But it sure sounded like a false conversion from what I was reading.
“Read Elaine Pagels’ book The Origin of Satan for an excellent account of how Christianity did this.”
Is her reasoning anything like yours?
ConnieS…
This is a lot to read, but I’ve tried to make things short and clear.
Okay, first thing on the menu. We’re talking about the use of one Hebrew word to describe two different things. Let’s assume here the Hebrew you guys are using is fully accurate and there are no differences from when the passages were written and what you’re quoting to me now.
Side note: I doubt this, but we’ll go with it anyway.
Firstly, one word can be used to describe two different things in any language. If I say ‘wicked’ we could be talking about something good, or bad. It’s the context of the passage that we’re interested in that determines the word’s use (and by use I’m referring to tense, or feel, or whatever). In all of the passages quoted, I would agree that there is nothing to indicate that the word used in the ‘gay passage’ is any worse, or different from the others. Either all of the things noted need to be considered as abominations before the Lord, or they’re all to be seen as nothing bad at all. So with that understood, let’s look at why I have a problem with homosexuality, and not with other things in the OT law today.
Turn to Romans 1:27, if you have a bible. Here we have Paul talking about this kind of thing, and maybe even a few other things not covered in the bible. Through the various scriptures (like this one) we can learn that marriage is the only union that allows any form indulgence in the flesh. Later in the NT, Paul even talks about how (if possible) it’d be better for people to not marry, and to devote themselves to God, gratifying the things of the spirit, as opposed to the things of the flesh. The Ten Commandments also back up these understandings. It is a common biblical theme that lustful, self-serving behaviour is not of God. Also look at 1 Cor 6:12. Okay, now we get to the good stuff.
“You said before that the old covenant was still valid.”
Not exactly. What was the purpose of the old law? The bible says to lead us to Christ. Without the knowledge of the law we wouldn’t know we were sinners. So, with that in mind, what happens to the law when we accept Christ? Paul says that we fulfil the law. We uphold it by our faith in Christ. Romans 3:21 (and specifically verse 31, but read the whole thing for context).
So how does this work? Paul talks about how the old covenant is like a will, and the old will said that with the shedding of blood the requirements of the law would allow us forgiveness of our sins. So why the shedding of blood? It works the same way as a will today.
For example: If I die, and say in my will “You receive my car.” You won’t receive my car until I have died- my blood is shed. Then you receive what is promised.
This is the reason blood had to be kept being shed (through sacrifices)… so that the law was active. Why the constant sacrifices then? Because the sacrifices were imperfect. The new testament (a new will) allows us to have our sins forgiven because the sacrifice of Christ was perfect. His blood is spotless and free from sin so the shedding of blood had to only occur once. Now through faith we can have salvation and forgiveness for our sins if we so choose.
So point in case—the new covenant doesn’t do away with the old. It brings to full fruition the laws of the old, into a new understanding. So how do we know what has been renewed?
We look at how things are mentioned in the NT. Jesus himself is against lust, and selfishness, for one, but he also makes it clear that God is no longer interested in outward appearances. Instead, he’s interested in our heart and it’s motives. Why? Because he dwells within us, and not in temples like he did in the old. That is why Jesus said “In three days I will destroy this temple and rebuild it again.” (and of course the religious leaders of the day laughed at him) He was talking about himself, because he was (as I am) a temple for the Holy Spirit.
You guys need to ask yourselves why it is God had a problem with things like homosexuality in the first place. The entire bible is littered with the answers. For a long time I too didn’t understand the relationship between the old and new, so I did some research and found out. If I hadn’t been able to find out why we didn’t follow the Leviticus (and other OT books) laws I would have packed up Christianity and forgotten about it. Thankfully, God wanted us to have a good theological understanding of his ways that attain to salvation.
If there are any areas of what I’ve written that you don’t understand, try reading over what I’ve written again and double check to see if you can get some perspective on it. I’m expecting people will understand. If I can catch it, you can catch it. Also, check out my interpretation and read Romans, or Hebrews.
I hope this helps with the understanding.
Sure. You have interpreted the Old and New Testament so that you may follow the parts that you already believe in. “The Bible is littered with answers” indeed-your long-winded answer again boils down to the fact that you have yet again told us that you won’t tell us how you can justify following parts old testament that agree with your prejudices and ignore the parts that would make your life inconvenient.
We don’t need to ask ourselves why God has a problem with homosexuality. We are wondering why you do. Precisely which verses in the New Testament convinced you that you may follow only part of the Old Testament? Which verse in the Old Testament says that it is designed to lead us to Christ?
I had a math teacher once who, when questioned about any mathematical problems, would invariably say"Why don’t you look it up in your textbook-that’s what it’s there for!" When the district superintendant questioned this teacher about why his students got consistantly low grades, do you know what his answer was?
“They never listened to me!”
Connie S, thanks for the correction. I didn’t have a copy of the Tanakh handy, so I went by memory. My bad.
Jesus didn’t say one word about homosexuality. Paul had quite a bit to say, but then he also said women should be submissive to men. :rolleyes:
Amazing! I’ve never met people so completely unable to understand anything this much before!
How the heck you became a moderator, Czarcasm, is the greatest mystery of all. If you want to know the answers to your questions, put in the hard yards and do the investigation yourself. It’s obvious you just don’t get what I say… and btw, the “long-winded answer” wasn’t for you. It was for Connie, who was kind enough to ask, instead of acting like someone too dumb to understand anything. I’m not here to provide you with spoon-fed answers. Instead, save yourself, or forever be asking the same bunch of questions to every christian that passes you by.
walks away laughing at the stupidity of it all
And gobear- you’re right on all counts. But sex with anyone other than your wife is lust, and Jesus said a LOT about that. Make the connection man.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Reactor *
**
How the heck you became a moderator, Czarcasm, is the greatest mystery of all. If you want to know the answers to your questions, put in the hard yards and do the investigation yourself. It’s obvious you just don’t get what I say… and btw, the “long-winded answer” wasn’t for you. It was for Connie, who was kind enough to ask, instead of acting like someone too dumb to understand anything. I’m not here to provide you with spoon-fed answers. Instead, save yourself, or forever be asking the same bunch of questions to every christian that passes you by.
walks away laughing at the stupidity of it all
But I don’t have sex or even look at anyone other than my spouse. We are perfectly monogamous. So why don’t you make the connection?
It’s a good thing that folks like Reactor come along every so often, just to remind me why I am not a Christian. Self-righteous evangelizers without a drop of genuine friendliness or kindness in them cure any desire to rejoin the Church like <snaps fingers> that.
It is indeed nearly miraculous that only Reactor has the key to understandinhg the complete meaning of the Scriptures and the rest of us are unlettered boobs too stupid to follow his reasoning.
Praise Jesus!
Think how much nicer Christianity would have been if Paul had never arrived. As a non-christian (atheistic Buddhist), I find many of Jesus’ teachings to be inspirational and full of love. But I find Paul to be an angry, bitter, controlling person. Just leaves a very bad impression. I wish more christians would be Christ-like rather than Paul-like.
JOhn.