Book Plunge: God and the Gay Christian

[Truthseeker]

In the Lord's Prayer is the plea to God, "lead us not into temptation but . . ." It's not clear to me that temptation by itself (not lusting but close) does not count as sin.

[The Pixie]

For incest, the holiness code in Leviticus 18 and 20 are against incestual relationships among close relatives. For polygamy, when we get to the NT, there's hardly a hint of it if even that and I think Jesus excluded it in Mathew 19.

There are different words to describe them and also Leviticus 18 and 20 end with saying that it's for these kinds of practices the other nations are being driven out. Nothing about that with eating shellfish.

One reason I can so readily dismiss modern Christianity is the way it cherry-picks what it wants from the Old Testament. If it accepted the OT Laws, as Jesus did, and as the disciples continued to do for decades after his death, I could respect that. If they just accepted first love God, second love your neighbour

[Adrift]

One reason I can so readily dismiss modern Christianity is the way it cherry-picks what it wants from the Old Testament. If it accepted the OT Laws, as Jesus did, and as the disciples continued to do for decades after his death, I could respect that. If they just accepted first love God, second love your neighbour

That really isn't the case, and there is a legit methodology to why Christians seemingly accept some of the Old Testament law while ignoring other bits. It's pretty well explained in Bible, especially in Paul's epistles. You've been on this forum for a very long time though, and I'm certain you've read the explanation at some point in your stay here. Either you have terrible memory, or you simply pick and choose what you want to accept and what you want to ignore.

[Jedidiah]

That really isn't the case, and there is a legit methodology to why Christians seemingly accept some of the Old Testament law while ignoring other bits. It's pretty well explained in Bible, especially in Paul's epistles. You've been on this forum for a very long time though, and I'm certain you've read the explanation at some point in your stay here. Either you have terrible memory, or you simply pick and choose what you want to accept and what you want to ignore.

I suspect that facts are not of much interest to The Pixie. He is probably aware of the legitimate exegesis process, but chooses to ignore the fact.

[mossrose]

One reason I can so readily dismiss modern Christianity is the way it cherry-picks what it wants from the Old Testament. If it accepted the OT Laws, as Jesus did, and as the disciples continued to do for decades after his death, I could respect that. If they just accepted first love God, second love your neighbour

You are showing your ignorance of scripture. The dietary laws were dismissed in Acts when Peter had a vision of a sheet carrying all types of foods, and God told him that what He declared to be clean should not be called unclean.

But homosexuality, as well as fornication and adultery are clearly STILL called sin in the NT.

[The Pixie]

That really isn't the case, and there is a legit methodology to why Christians seemingly accept some of the Old Testament law while ignoring other bits. It's pretty well explained in Bible, especially in Paul's epistles. You've been on this forum for a very long time though, and I'm certain you've read the explanation at some point in your stay here. Either you have terrible memory, or you simply pick and choose what you want to accept and what you want to ignore.

I guess it depends on whether you follow Jesus or Paul. Jesus said he was not changing the law at all, Paul said otherwise.

[The Pixie]

You are showing your ignorance of scripture. The dietary laws were dismissed in Acts when Peter had a vision of a sheet carrying all types of foods, and God told him that what He declared to be clean should not be called unclean.

My bad. I was under the impression the disciples continued to follow the dietary laws. So eating shellfish was an abomination, but then god changed his mind, and gave Peter a dream, and now eating shellfish is not an abomination.

[Adrift]

I guess it depends on whether you follow Jesus or Paul. Jesus said he was not changing the law at all, Paul said otherwise.

Nah, there's no discrepancy between the two. In fact Paul's theology is based on Jesus' claim to have fulfilled the law. I'm certain you heard about that too, but cherrypickers gotta cherry pick.

[mossrose]

My bad. I was under the impression the disciples continued to follow the dietary laws. So eating shellfish was an abomination, but then god changed his mind, and gave Peter a dream, and now eating shellfish is not an abomination.

And now you show your lack of understanding of the whole of scripture, which is unsurprising, since you don't have the Spirit to enlighten you. The coming of Christ and His atoning work brought in a new covenant.

Since you have no real desire to understand, and only wish to cling to your sin, I will leave you to it.

[hamster]

My bad. I was under the impression the disciples continued to follow the dietary laws. So eating shellfish was an abomination, but then god changed his mind, and gave Peter a dream, and now eating shellfish is not an abomination.

Which passage are you referring to regarding shellfish? AFAIK "shellfish will be disgusting to you" isn't the same as saying it's inherently wicked to eat shellfish. It's just prescribing Jewish cultural eating preferences.

[Jedidiah]

I guess it depends on whether you follow Jesus or Paul. Jesus said he was not changing the law at all, Paul said otherwise.

Once again you misrepresent Scripture intentionally. You know better you are just baiting.

[rogue06]

I guess it depends on whether you follow Jesus or Paul. Jesus said he was not changing the law at all, Paul said otherwise.

Jesus said He fulfilled the Law. Paul reacted as if the Law had been fulfilled.

[lilpixieofterror]

I guess it depends on whether you follow Jesus or Paul. Jesus said he was not changing the law at all, Paul said otherwise.

Well, that's a pretty silly comment that shows you don't know what you're talking about.

[lilpixieofterror]

My bad. I was under the impression the disciples continued to follow the dietary laws. So eating shellfish was an abomination, but then god changed his mind, and gave Peter a dream, and now eating shellfish is not an abomination.

And another stupid comment that shows you don't understand Christian theology. The dietary rules had to do with ritual purity, so why do you need ritual purity anymore when Jesus fulfilled the law though his death on the cross? Seriously, is that the best you can do?

[Sea of red]

You are showing your ignorance of scripture. The dietary laws were dismissed in Acts when Peter had a vision of a sheet carrying all types of foods, and God told him that what He declared to be clean should not be called unclean.

But homosexuality, as well as fornication and adultery are clearly STILL called sin in the NT.

Don't you find that just a little suspicious? A vision that conveniently removes the dietary laws that Jews kept for their entire history, and will help make Christian theology more attractive to gentiles, is just a little bit suspect to me; in fact it sounds like it's by design.