Understanding the Bible 101: Old Testament (OT) law and New Testament (NT) "law"

[revrew]

Understanding the Bible 101: Old Testament (OT) law and New Testament (NT) "law"

The diversity of denominations within wider Christendom makes this complex. I will try to be as comprehensive as I can, which is why I insisted on creating this in its own thread.

The following is distinctively Protestant/Evangelical theology. I can't speak for Catholics, whose theology I'm less familiar with. Nor can I speak to "liberal" Mainline theologians or faux-Christian denominations like Universalism, who have their own systems (which I would categorize as "we don't need to understand the Bible if we simply disregard it completely"), but beginning with Martin Luther himself, through Billy Graham and so forth, those who have held that the Bible is authoritative (such as, but not limited to, the "Sola Scriptura" crowd) with some room for nuance and disagreement (no one argues theology more than theologians, even those from the same church!), the following is a guideline to orthodox Christian understanding of the "Law."

The average person in the pew doesn't necessarily understand any of this – hence, we get all kinds of half-truth slogans from your typical Christian ("Jesus nailed the law to the Cross, so we don't need the OT anymore" – yeah … not quite), but pastors or preachers educated in orthodox Protestant theology, or simply earnest students of the Scriptures as a whole, will follow a system at least resembling the following:

Overarching theme:

The Bible is, first and foremost, a story of God revealing himself, not just a list of rules. That's why we can't just point to a verse where it says, "No pork," or, "Stone adulterers," and assume it's a requirement for Christians or for civil government in, say, the U.S. From Creation to the end of time as recorded in the book of Revelation, the Bible has to be taken in its greater context. When in doubt, the phrase "Scripture interprets Scripture" is often cited, meaning that any one passage of the Bible must be understood in the light of the rest of the Bible. NO cherry picking.

OT Law

God gave to Moses a host of instructions called "the law," some 600+ instructions and requirements. These laws, however, were not all given for the same purpose, and therefore are not all applied the same way today. They break down into the following categories:

A. Civil Law (i.e. "Stone adulterers")
B. Ceremonial law ("Sacrifice two bulls")
C. Dietary law ("No shellfish")
D. Moral law (i.e. "Thou shalt not kill")

Some theologians recognize the 10 Commandments as a sort of category E., "Eternal law," a moral code that stands forever, above and more firm than moral law. I don't know if that's justified, or if the 10 are just a subcategory of moral law, so some rearranging may happen there.

Civil Law – Understood in context of its wider story, God established among the Israelites (prior to the anointing of King Saul) a theocracy, a form of civil government with laws handed down by God for governing a people. These listed crimes and punishments, financial laws, immigration law and all the trappings of a civil government.

That country, however, no longer exists. It was destroyed – some would say at the anointing of Saul, others at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., but either way, it's gone.

Therefore, unless we're living in an ancient Israelite theocracy, these laws are no longer applicable. This is why Christians don’t advocate we stone adulterers or govern divorce or slavery the way it's regulated in the OT. There's no hypocrisy in it. Those instructions are for governing a country that no longer exists, nor does God command that it be reestablished on earth.

We can, however, gain clues in the wider context to what God deems right and wrong. If he made a certain crime in OT Israel punishable by death, it's a clue that the action may be considered wrong. Not definitive, but a solid context clue. Something that would help when we get to the moral code, later.

Ceremonial Law – The system of sacrifices and feasts and celebrations and regulations.

Once again, this system of sacrifices has also passed into history, destroyed with the Temple in 70 AD. This is why neither Christians nor most Jews sacrifice pigeons and goats and bulls anymore, though Jewish people (and some Christians) do still observe the feast and holy days.

Yet even if the Temple were rebuilt in Jerusalem, Christians understand from the NT that the sacrifices (such as that of the spotless lamb, or the scapegoat) were but pictures pointing us to the great and last sacrifice, that of Jesus himself. I don't know what Jews would do, but for Christians, the sacrificial system has passed away permanently. That chapter in the story is closed.

Dietary Law – Shellfish, pork, etc. This is a bit more controversial. Some well-intentioned Christians believe these dietary restrictions are still in place today (I have friends who don't eat pork, etc), especially since the Bible uses language about dietary law that very closely resembles the language used in moral law.

Even the 1st century church debated hotly these questions. Eventually, the NT records, the leaders of the church met in Jerusalem to settle this issue that was being debated. Were these dietary laws part of the distinctly Jewish identity that God had established as part of his "peculiar people," or were these laws to be applied to the Greeks and Romans and other non-Jews that were coming to the faith? Did these "Gentiles" have to become Jews first, then become Christians?

The NT records the early church decided no, non-Jews don't need to adopt these "peculiar" practices, that the dietary laws were for the Jewish people only.

Then later, the NT records and incident where Peter (a Jewish Christian) was told by God that he could eat the "unclean" animals in his ministry to Gentiles, and that it wasn't what went into his mouth that could make him "unclean," but what came out of it.

Since that time, the vast majority of Christians do not observe the dietary laws. Again, there's no hypocrisy in it, when the greater story of the Bible specifically suggests these laws no longer apply.

Moral law – Some of the moral law is very clearly spelled out, literally written in stone. The 10 Commandments, for example, establish this is right this is wrong. Period. End of story. (But, you might say, "Christians often don't celebrate the Sabbath any more." To which I answer, that IS an example of rampant hypocrisy in the church. They should.)

Some of the moral law, however - the this is right, this is wrong, this is "an abomination," type stuff - appears in the text right next to the dietary or civil or ceremonial laws that no longer are in force. To enforce these moral laws, some would say, is cherry picking.

This is why it's important to ask, is this practice merely outlawed or condemned? Is its ban merely a civil requirement, or is it an implied moral requirement? Is it repeatedly condemned as immoral? Is it contrary to or a corruption of the Creation? Does the NT also speak to it?

Granted, this leaves things open for more controversy, but as you look at the whole of Scripture, the phrase, "If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and talks like a duck" applies. If it's labeled sin here, there and there, and if the reasoning for calling it a sin is spelled out… then it's a sin, whether it appears right next to ceremonial law or not.

For example: Many theologians make the case that financial giving to God's cause is a requirement of Christians. Yes, the "tithing" passages appear in the civil law passages, but the principle of first fruits was established even before Moses was given the law, it's affirmed by Jesus, and the 1st century church in the NT practiced it. Thus, it falls into moral law. Christians are morally required to give financially.

Another more feisty example: Divorce. God regulated divorce (civil law), but both OT and NT passages, Jesus own' words, Paul's, repeatedly affirm that – except in certain cases (an unbelieving spouse leaves the believer, and some would say, and I agree, infidelity) – marriage is for a lifetime. The rampant divorce rate within Christianity IS blatant hypocrisy.

Modern Christians, however, really kick against the goads on this one. They don't LIKE that they should be required to reconcile a broken marriage relationship. Whole denominations have decided that this clear, moral law of Scripture is just too hard to abide in today's culture, so they have – to the great discredit of themselves and the Christian religion – just ignored every principle of sound biblical interpretation and said, "Divorce is sad, but it's not bad."

This is one of the reasons so many nonbelievers are confused and think Christianity is cherry picking. Because these denominations ARE cherry picking. They don't want to abide by God's ethics, so they abandon sound theology and pick and choose the verses they like. No wonder nonbelievers scoff at Christianity! Believe me, I get it.

Last example: Homosexuality. Yes, the book of Leviticus condemns the practice, but is this merely a civil law, or a moral law that is affirmed throughout the rest of Scripture? Honest reading of the entirety of Scripture demonstrates that from the Creation account in Genesis, throughout the OT law, affirmed again in the NT and even reasoned in the NT back through the OT, that homosexuality, like fornication or prostitution, is repeatedly and clearly defined as a form of sexual immorality. It's clearly one of the moral laws, and not just a civil law (as if it could be a civil law at all – I guess it could be, if the government was just trying to produce children, but that's a fairly weak argument, especially since the passages don't say anything about children, but specifically mention the sex act itself as immoral).

Finally, NT "law"

In the New Testament, you have to ask the question, who is the person speaking to? That's part of sound interpretation of anything, biblical or not.

Jesus, for example, often makes sweeping pronunciations that would apply to everyone. You can bet if Jesus said it was sin, it is.

Paul, however, wrote letters to the churches, often giving instructions to Christians specifically. These are not the 10 commandments or moral laws that apply to everyone, but instructions on how to live the Christian life. They govern how Christians treat one another, how they operate within the church, how the church governs itself.

Sometimes, of course, Paul does speak to the culture at large. The book of Romans, for example, is a sweeping theological treatise that covers areas of doctrine, of universal truth. The point is to lay down the basic theology that's true for everybody. His condemnation of various sins in Romans 1, therefore, aren't for Christians only, but are expressions of theological truth. It's not as though murder and gossip (2 sins mentioned in Romans 1:29) are only sins in the church, but for everyone.

Other passages, however, address specifically the church and church government and would have nothing to do with civil government.

For example, Paul says that preachers are worthy of a double portion of income. Does this mean that the U.S. government should pass a law that all preachers must have a minimum wage of twice the national average? Of course not. That's a ridiculous reading out of context.

Similarly, does the passage that instructs Christians not to be unequally yoked with nonbelievers mean the U.S. government should ban interfaith marriages? Again, of course not. It's an instruction addressed to Christians, not to the civil government.

The question you have to ask is, who is he addressing? Christians specifically, or wider truths at large?



Conclusion

This is not some off-the-wall crazy system revrew invented. This systematic, full-context, logical understanding of how to interpret Scripture is taught in churches, colleges and seminaries around the world. It's Christian Theology 101. Granted, there are variations, and granted, there are still debates within Christianity on how to best interpret this passage or that passage.

But the notion that Christians just don't make any sense, that their scattershot acceptance of one passage and not another is just based on bias and bigotry, that it's full of hypocrisy and self-contradiction … is just not true. At worst, it's a lie perpetrated by anti-Christian apologists and repeated so often, that most people believe it. At best, it's just a straw man argument.

If you still think I'm wacky, I'm not really surprised. The Bible specifically states that what is plain and obvious will fall on deaf ears, that some people walk around with darkened understanding utterly incapable of hearing truth, and wisdom will be rejected as foolishness. There are some that will rant and rave and foam at the mouth over what I've said. But if it's at all helpful to those that are genuinely curious, then I've done what I set out to do.

[molson]

"Honest reading of the entirety of Scripture demonstrates that from the Creation account in Genesis, throughout the OT law, affirmed again in the NT and even reasoned in the NT back through the OT, that homosexuality, like fornication or prostitution, is repeatedly and clearly defined as a form of sexual immorality."

Interesting stuff but I still have a question about this part. Where is homosexuality "clearly" affirmed as a form of sexual immorality in the New Testament (aside from just sexual immorality generally, and as its own specific thing that is really, really bad.) And more importantly, where and how did it became THE MOST IMPORTANT moral law to some modern Christians? Something that goes beyond merely "sin" that all humans commit, but as almost evil incarnate that so much opposition is organized around. I mean, do you believe it's "worse" than mere fornication? I could be wrong but my impression is that it's viewed that way. Is that importance evident in the new testament? If it's SO important why didn't Jesus talk about it at all?

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, this one is going to end well.

[Suicane75]

While I don't always agree with what you say, I more than appreciate how you say it. Have you ever read, or have an opinion on Tolstoys interpretation of the bible?

[Chief Rum]

I'm not even gonna get into the fact the NT was itself "cherry picked" into what would become its current form by theologians of the time some 300 years after Jesus was crucified, ignoring other Christian texts that didn't fit their opinion of Christianity.

I'm not saying those other books are "truth" either. Just saying the book on which you base what you wrote is itself as much a product of man as it is the word of God.

[molson]

And the other question I have is, are the "truths" of Christianity only intended by accessible to scholars and those with the intellect to comprehend everything you've laid out? My own personal, (very limited) understanding of Christianity was that Jesus (and based on the religion I was raised in, Martin Luther), kind of swept that away and made god accessible to the masses. The idea was that anyone could have a relationship with god, you didn't have to go through your government, or even the human leaders of your organized religion who wrote up the rules. Because they're just a human too and not any more loved or enlightened just because of the scholarly or intellectual (or financial) abilities.

[CrimsonFox]

I celebrate the Sabbath...

I listen to this !

[revrew]

Originally Posted by molson

Interesting stuff but I still have a question about this part. Where is homosexuality "clearly" affirmed as a form of sexual immorality in the New Testament (aside from just sexual immorality generally, and as its own specific thing that is really, really bad.) And more importantly, where and how did it became THE MOST IMPORTANT moral law to some modern Christians? Is that importance evident in the new testament? If it's SO important why didn't Jesus talk about it at all?

Last questions first:

The "most important" moral law to some Christians? I don't know any Christians (outside of Westboro Baptist) that would call it the most important, even if they accepted the Dante-like "ranking" of laws and sins, which most I know would reject. It's only prominent now, because it's a prominent political/cultural issue. If murder or stealing were the sin-du-jour people were trying to legalize, you'd hear Christians going nuts over those too.

Jesus didn't talk about it because he was a real person dealing with real issues. We have no record of anyone confronting him about it or questioning him about it, and the Jewish culture he lived in soundly condemned it ... so why would he talk about it? Paul, who ministered to a more Gentile audience, WAS confronted by it in the Greek and Roman culture, so he did talk about it:

Romans 1:25-27 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. in the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified int eh name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

While I don't always agree with what you say, I more than appreciate how you say it. Have you ever read, or have an opinion on Tolstoys interpretation of the bible?

I understand, and thanks. No, I haven't read it.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm not even gonna get into the fact the NT was itself "cherry picked" into what would become its current form by theologians of the time some 300 years after Jesus was crucified, ignoring other Christian texts that didn't fit their opinion of Christianity.

I'm not saying those other books are "truth" either. Just saying the book on which you base what you wrote is itself as much a product of man as it is the word of God.

This is kind of where I am right now. I see The Bible as a parable, nothing more. I don't trust men enough to deliver the Word of God without adding their own conceits.

[JediKooter]

[revrew]

Originally Posted by molson

And the other question I have is, are the "truths" of Christianity only intended by accessible to scholars and those with the intellect to comprehend everything you've laid out? My own personal, (very limited) understanding of Christianity was that Jesus (and based on the religion I was raised in, Martin Luther), kind of swept that away and made god accessible to the masses. The idea was that anyone could have a relationship with god, you didn't have to go through your government, or even the human leaders of your organized religion who wrote up the rules. Because they're just a human too and not any more loved or enlightened just because of the scholarly or intellectual (or financial) abilities.

No, the truths are not intended to be accessible only by scholars. But God repeatedly commanded parents and pastors to teach those in their charge sound doctrine and the fullness of God's work, from Creation through the OT through today. That's why I said this is Christianity 101, basic stuff. This is what parents and pastors should be teaching those in their charge almost immediately after they come to faith.

The idea that Jesus abolished the Old Testament and that Christianity only uses the NT is simply some bad teaching.

And, yes, anyone can have and begin a relationship with Christ, regardless of understanding any of this stuff. But from there, we are called to grow, to study, to deepen our understanding, to learn, "work it out," and that's where this comes in.

[bhlloy]

Do you allow divorcees in your church rev? And would you stand in the pulpit and deliver a sermon or support someone who delivered a sermon about divorce along the same lines of condemnation that the church seems to reserve for homosexuality? Because that's by far the main hypocrisy I see today, not along the lines of theology but along the lines of what is condemned because it doesn't hit close to home

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Yeah, this one is going to end well.

Might as well pick out the members who will get boxed in this thread and then the members that will be banned in the "WTF Skydog" thread ahead of time. Anyone want to set up a pool?

[spleen1015]

I'm in line with Subby (WTF am I thinking??), and Chief.

Other people are telling me that the Bible is the word of God. People aren't trustworthy. So, how am I to believe them?

Give me 2 thousands years, some charisma and I bet I could have millions of people believing that the potato is the physical form of God and they should be worshiped.

[tarcone]

I enjoyed reading this. Very informative.

The Bible is full of things that man cannot understand. We have to have faith. Belief that it is true.

Doctrines from denominations also muddy the water. Certain denominations, IMO, do not follow the teachings of Jesus. They are doctrines produced by pharisees. And thus make Christianity look hypocritical or wrong thinking.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Give me 2 thousands years, some charisma and I bet I could have millions of people believing that the potato is the physical form of God and they should be worshiped.

As long as I can still consume said potato in any form I please, I will gladly be your first disciple!

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Subby

This is kind of where I am right now. I see The Bible as a parable, nothing more. I don't trust men enough to deliver the Word of God without adding their own conceits.

Someone I knew that went to seminary said they were teaching that each of the books was not in fact written by one person. But that it was written by lots of people who wrote like that. Like Matthew wasn't written by st matthew and luke wasn't written by luke,etc. But each book was sculpted through the ages by various people until it became the section of the bible that it is. And they were teaching this in a seminary. This kinda blew my mind that that was a possibility and even more that they would teach that.

So with that thoguht in mind, any old prejudice could easily just be thrown in by the bigot of the day who was editing that section in that time.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

As long as I can still consume said potato in any form I please, I will gladly be your first disciple!

damnit Chief! Stop eating God!

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

Might as well pick out the members who will get boxed in this thread and then the members that will be banned in the "WTF Skydog" thread ahead of time. Anyone want to set up a pool?

Eh, people say that in every thread about religion but it doesn't really get too testy here anymore. When was the last time people got banned for something besides posting offensive photos or complaining about modding?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

damnit Chief! Stop eating God!

I was raised Catholic. It comes naturally.

I don't know if I will be able to contain myself for an hour-long service waiting to walk up and take "O'Graten" every Sunday.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I was raised Catholic. It comes naturally.

I don't know if I will be able to contain myself for an hour-long service waiting to walk up and take "O'Graten" every Sunday.

I was too. So I assume instead of sacrimental wine, the chalices will be filled with sacred dipping ketchup?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I was too. So I assume instead of sacrimental wine, the chalices will be filled with sacred dipping ketchup?

Naw, we're going on full on potato. It will be potato cheese soup!

[CrimsonFox]

with croutons...

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by revrew

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified int eh name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

That's one interpretation, but not necessarily the correct one. For instance, the English Standard version doesn't refer to "male prostitues" at all. In King James, homosexuality nor male prostitutes are mentioned at all. In other versions, the term "homosexual" has been substituted from the original Latin word catamite, which is a term for a boy in a homosexual relationship - which is different than a relationship between consenting adults.

And, of course, this is just one passage from a large book in a different language compiled some 250 years after the main protagonist supposedly lived and died.

[tarcone]

Ah Catholicism. Not a fan. Pharisee teachings, IMO.

On the news the other day, they were interviewing a minister about Stan Musial. He talked about how Stan was baptized into the church. Now, I took this as into the Catholic church. Not the church of Christ.

[markprior22]

Revrew...what are your thoughts on 2 Timothy 3:15 where Paul instructs to "rightly divide the word of truth?" What division is he speaking about in that verse?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by revrew

Jesus didn't talk about it because he was a real person dealing with real issues. We have no record of anyone confronting him about it or questioning him about it, and the Jewish culture he lived in soundly condemned it ... so why would he talk about it?

But if it isn't a teaching of Jesus, why decide to follow it so strenuously?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That's one interpretation, but not necessarily the correct one. For instance, the English Standard version doesn't refer to "male prostitues" at all. In King James, homosexuality nor male prostitutes are mentioned at all. In other versions, the term "homosexual" has been substituted from the original Latin word catamite, which is a term for a boy in a homosexual relationship - which is different than a relationship between consenting adults.

And, of course, this is just one passage from a large book in a different language compiled some 250 years after the main protagonist supposedly lived and died.

I was about to call shenanigans on that myself as I was pretty darn sure the word homosexuality did not appear or even exist in the bible.

can't find my own at the moment tho.

No doubt it was "edited" by "God"

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I'm in line with Subby (WTF am I thinking??), and Chief.

Other people are telling me that the Bible is the word of God. People aren't trustworthy. So, how am I to believe them?

Give me 2 thousands years, some charisma and I bet I could have millions of people believing that the potato is the physical form of God and they should be worshiped.

There have been lots of charismatic leaders in the history of man. But only Ones teachings have stood the test of time. Interesting thought.

[ISiddiqui]

Also there is discussion that the Romans text that a lot of conservative Christians use to strike down homosexuality was really concerned with Roman temple prostitution (which did take homosexual nature at times). Kind of how Sodom & Gomorrah are about inhospitality rather than OMG, teh gheys!

Regardless, homosexuality is something mentioned very, very rarely in the text.

Furthermore, the majority of Christians do not take the text 100% literally (the reason I say majority, btw, is because the Catholic Church never has and that's 1.2 billion Christians). A lot of Christians see the Bible as inspired by God, but written by the hands of men, and thus we have to dig into what was trying to be said, knowing the cultural and era context.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by tarcone

There have been lots of charismatic leaders in the history of man. But only Ones teachings have stood the test of time. Interesting thought.

Mohammad? Confucius? The Buddha? John the Baptist?

Seems to me that teachings of many have stood the test of time.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

But if it isn't a teaching of Jesus, why decide to follow it so strenuously?

This goes back to the concept of the Christian faith being a full story, from creation, through BOTH testaments, until the end of time. Taking Jesus out of context is as theologically irresponsible as taking any passage out of context.

Were it not for the Old Testament, Jesus could have just as easily been an alien. I'm not even joking.

The full context of the Bible is clear (for all the above attempts at explaining it away) on the topic of God's design for sexuality vs. well, other designs.

Trying to divorce any part of Christian doctrine from the story as a whole creates theological errors.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by tarcone

There have been lots of charismatic leaders in the history of man. But only Ones teachings have stood the test of time. Interesting thought.

That is an odd way of looking at things. On this planet we have 7,000 languages, and thus distinct cultures and belief systems.

Also depending on where you are born you usually either follow a religion that recognizes a distinct god(Western religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) or a religion that does not recognize a distinct god and instead sees divine power in everything(Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism).

I've literally only covered six of the "major" religions and there are more than three times as many other religions out there that those don't cover.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Mohammad? Confucius? The Buddha? John the Baptist?

Seems to me that teachings of many have stood the test of time.

You beat me to this.

[spleen1015]

So, rev, what do you think about other religions? What about Muslims? Do you think they are wrong? Is it possible that they worship the same God, but interpret things differently?

[JPhillips]

Hinduism has been around since at least 1000 BCE and has a billion followers. I'd say it's passed the test of time.

[Coffee Warlord]

Ya know, as I've gotten older, I've realized my tolerance for debating religion with people has dropped dramatically. I used to love theological discussions.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by revrew

Last questions first:

The "most important" moral law to some Christians? I don't know any Christians (outside of Westboro Baptist) that would call it the most important, even if they accepted the Dante-like "ranking" of laws and sins, which most I know would reject. It's only prominent now, because it's a prominent political/cultural issue. If murder or stealing were the sin-du-jour people were trying to legalize, you'd hear Christians going nuts over those too.

Jesus didn't talk about it because he was a real person dealing with real issues. We have no record of anyone confronting him about it or questioning him about it, and the Jewish culture he lived in soundly condemned it ... so why would he talk about it? Paul, who ministered to a more Gentile audience, WAS confronted by it in the Greek and Roman culture, so he did talk about it:

Romans 1:25-27 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. in the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified int eh name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Originally Posted by revrew

This goes back to the concept of the Christian faith being a full story, from creation, through BOTH testaments, until the end of time. Taking Jesus out of context is as theologically irresponsible as taking any passage out of context.

Were it not for the Old Testament, Jesus could have just as easily been an alien. I'm not even joking.

The full context of the Bible is clear (for all the above attempts at explaining it away) on the topic of God's design for sexuality vs. well, other designs.

Trying to divorce any part of Christian doctrine from the story as a whole creates theological errors.

Then you have made a theological error and are being theologically irresponsible.

[molson]

Originally Posted by revrew

The full context of the Bible is clear

I respect religion, I respect believers, but even religious scholars can't agree on what the bible says. Not much about the bible is clear at all to me. Even the passages you cited where homosexuality is referenced have been reasonably interpreted a variety of different ways. Which, according to my own personal beliefs, is just because we're all imperfect humans who can only scratch the surface of what "god" even is, though I believe it's also a very worthwhile endeavor to try to have that relationship anyway, even though no human can definitively figure out all the mysteries of the universe and the human experience. My life is definitely better for have tried to explore those things, but I'm just never to going to be able to completely adopt any one other human's own personal vision for what it all means. I respect that for others, they can get closer to god through a more rigid personal belief system. I respect people's rights to pursue that, and even to make it a part of their government if they get enough votes. But human nature is to be more questioning and skeptical, that's part of how we advanced to this level of a species. We ask questions, develop our minds and souls, accomplish amazing things.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by molson

And more importantly, where and how did it became THE MOST IMPORTANT moral law to some modern Christians? Something that goes beyond merely "sin" that all humans commit, but as almost evil incarnate that so much opposition is organized around. I mean, do you believe it's "worse" than mere fornication? I could be wrong but my impression is that it's viewed that way. Is that importance evident in the new testament? If it's SO important why didn't Jesus talk about it at all?

I think the issue is that it is viewed as a unrepentant sin. People get and accept that lying is bad. Not only is homosexuality not deemed sinful in the eyes of many, but it is this huge cause and there are parades and such for it.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that I have no real say to someone who is't a Christian. This is a huge point that certain Christians don't get. Those Christians want the law of the Bible to be the law of the land when it doesn't work for people who aren't Christians.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

So, rev, what do you think about other religions? What about Muslims? Do you think they are wrong? Is it possible that they worship the same God, but interpret things differently?

First of all, careful examination of both gods, side-by-side, reveals they cannot be the same God. Both religions refute that they worship the same God; it's only outsiders trying to overlay some universalist theology that come up with that. And, to be blunt, it's baloney.

The world has always (at least in the days after Adam and Eve) been filled with various religions, various gods. The God of the Bible makes it clear He is the one and only true God and the various other gods are deceptions at best, demons at worst. Since I'm a Bible-believer, that pretty much tells you where I stand.

If I believed otherwise, if I believed any god is as good as another, then I certainly wouldn't be willing to take so much abuse around here, would I?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Then you have made a theological error and are being theologically irresponsible.

I'm open to correction. How so?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

The full context of the Bible is clear

Indeed. Love God with all your mind, heart, and soul & love your neighbor as yourself.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by molson

I respect religion, I respect believers, but even religious scholars can't agree on what the bible says. Not much about the bible is clear at all to me. Even the passages you cited where homosexuality is referenced have been reasonably interpreted a variety of different ways. Which, according to my own personal beliefs, is just because we're all imperfect humans who can only scratch the surface of what "god" even is, though I believe it's also a very worthwhile endeavor to try to have that relationship anyway, even though no human can definitively figure out all the mysteries of the universe and the human experience.

Cop out. Study it yourself. Do the legwork. Don't take my word or some theologian's word. People can be "reasonable" and completely wrong, as are the attempts to justify homosexuality as biblically moral. If you even remotely think that Jesus was who he said he was, then there's little excuse for ignoring Him, His Father or His Word.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by revrew

Both religions refute that they worship the same God; it's only outsiders trying to overlay some universalist theology that come up with that.

Completely untrue and nonsense. Both affirm that they follow Abraham - however, they get mixed up basically from the time period after the Maccabean revolt (same goes for Judaism and Christianity, FWIW).

[Drake]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Someone I knew that went to seminary said they were teaching that each of the books was not in fact written by one person. But that it was written by lots of people who wrote like that. Like Matthew wasn't written by st matthew and luke wasn't written by luke,etc. But each book was sculpted through the ages by various people until it became the section of the bible that it is. And they were teaching this in a seminary. This kinda blew my mind that that was a possibility and even more that they would teach that.

So with that thoguht in mind, any old prejudice could easily just be thrown in by the bigot of the day who was editing that section in that time.

It actually would tend to enforce orthodoxy (multiple reviewers/editors over spans of time), sort of the way it works with good science --- peer review to weed out the results of the nut cases.

Whether or not that's a good thing would depend on your feelings about orthodoxy in general.

Then again, this is why document caches like the Dead Sea Scrolls are so valuable, because they give us dated texts to compare subsequent versions against. I'm not a DSS scholar at all, but what little reading I've done seems to suggest that the consistency between the later sources used for the modern bible and the DSS comparative texts are pretty remarkable.

If I was more of a conspiracist, I'd worry much more about what was going on in Babylon during the Exile when most of the OT texts were codified and written down than about the formation of the NT materials.

(But I'm not a conspiracist. I tend to believe that if God is who he says he is, then it should be no huge feat to get us a copy of what he wants to say in more or less the form he wants us to have it. If he's not able to do that, then there's not really any reason to bother with him in the first place, because he's not going to have the power to save me like he promised anyway. It's much less taxing to just decide whether or not I'm going to accept the biblical narrative on its own terms rather than having to wade through each individual piece and pick and choose only the parts that I agree with and then find justifications to toss out all of the others. This is one of the reason I'm just as cool with atheists as with evangelicals. At least they've both made decisions without trying to make it all about them and the things they think God should have said.)

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Of course, I'm of the opinion that I have no real say to someone who is't a Christian. This is a huge point that certain Christians don't get. Those Christians want the law of the Bible to be the law of the land when it doesn't work for people who aren't Christians.

I have great respect for your opinion on this issue.

[tarcone]

Yeah. I misspoke. I was thinking more in the terms of modern day. I hadnt thought of the other religions of the world. I had blinders on. I take back my previous statement. But I dont think a potato would stand 2000 years. But as you have seen, I have been wrong once or twice in my life.

[molson]

Originally Posted by revrew

If you even remotely think that Jesus was who he said he was, then there's little excuse for ignoring Him, His Father or His Word.

And all those times he gathered people and told them that as Christians, we need to be most concerned with homosexuality above all else. He did say that, right?