Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where do you find the justification for taking the NT literally but not the OT?

Why wouldn't you take the New Testament literally? You can take everything literally unless you have reason not to.

So why not the OT?

The better question is, have you read either from beginning to end?

Yes, more than once.

I ask this because when you read the Bible many of these questions answer themselves.

Not really. It sounds like you read the OT non-literally because it doesn't make coherent sense to you, and you read the NT literally because it makes sense to you.

If the NT doesn't make sense to other people, you think they are wrong it says in the text it is the word of God. If someone points out that the OT says the same, you talk about something else instead of dealing with it directly.

Look, if you just believe it because you believe it, not for any arguable or rational reason, that's fine. But own it.

No, I have been more than direct. If you don’t want to take the text seriously because a very clear part of it is not what you want it to be, then dismiss the entire thing. That’s fine. But your interpretation seems superficial and arbitrary, what little of it you have shared.

There is a difference between “doesn’t make sense,” “I don’t like it,” or “conflicts with other parts of the text.”

I think you are going in circles and if you want to talk about any specific verses and why you don’t believe them, that’s fine. I am up to the task, but not interested in your attempts to have a gotcha moment, which is why you keep talking about generalities.

We all know Pence is gay

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where do you find the justification for taking the NT literally but not the OT?

Why wouldn't you take the New Testament literally? You can take everything literally unless you have reason not to.

So why not the OT?

The better question is, have you read either from beginning to end?

Yes, more than once.

I ask this because when you read the Bible many of these questions answer themselves.

Not really. It sounds like you read the OT non-literally because it doesn't make coherent sense to you, and you read the NT literally because it makes sense to you.

If the NT doesn't make sense to other people, you think they are wrong it says in the text it is the word of God. If someone points out that the OT says the same, you talk about something else instead of dealing with it directly.

Look, if you just believe it because you believe it, not for any arguable or rational reason, that's fine. But own it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where do you find the justification for taking the NT literally but not the OT?

Why wouldn't you take the New Testament literally? You can take everything literally unless you have reason not to.

So why not the OT?

The better question is, have you read either from beginning to end?

I ask this because when you read the Bible many of these questions answer themselves.

You can take the Old Testament literally. Plenty of people do.

You can look at the text literally, seriously, whatever. You could take the same approach to the two texts but they are very different.

You could see the New Testament as just a lot of symbolism (or whatever the opposite of literally is to you). But the New Testament, as a text, is pretty direct. Which parts don’t you want to take literally? It refers directly to much of the vague aspects of the OT and says “this is it. This is the fulfillment of the law.” It does not tend to conflict with itself. It contains multiple texts describing the same events, suggesting that the authors want to verify for the reader “this really happened and multiple perspectives lead to nearly the same result.” It is a much more recent text and was written at a time relatively close to when the events described happened. If you read the New Testament seriously, you can’t really pick it apart the way some people do with the OT.

If you don’t take the OT literally, or the New Testament literally, then you are probably not interested in Christianity as a religion but more of a series of philosophical recommendations. This is fine, but own it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where do you find the justification for taking the NT literally but not the OT?

Why wouldn't you take the New Testament literally? You can take everything literally unless you have reason not to.

So why not the OT?

Anonymous wrote:Where do you find the justification for taking the NT literally but not the OT?

Why wouldn't you take the New Testament literally? You can take everything literally unless you have reason not to.

Anonymous wrote:Op again. Also,in the new testament Jesus himself says that being with a divorced woman is wrong

Matthew 5:32

"..anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Why do churches allow divorce but are so upset about gay relationships when Jesus himself never talked about that?

I should have made that my title in retrospect.

It's in the new testament
It is said by Jesus himself
But churches still choose to ignore that and care about gay people instead

Assuming a church is very outspoken about an issue like gay marriage but ignoring divorce outside of Jesus' direction (no divorce except for adultery), I'd agree that's hypocritical.

However, other people may argue that the Bible says several different things about divorce, but condemnation of homosexual behavior is consistent across the whole text. I don't buy that. Jesus said that divorce cannot be outside of adultery, and it doesn't get much clearer than that. Jesus also forbid lust, the apostles recommended celibacy for everybody, and I see churches accepting people who live together outside of marriage, couples who have divorced previously, etc. None of this is following the Bible. If you are going to claim to be a Bible-based church, the first step is following the Bible, not just freaking out about gay marriage.

And I'm not trying to play gotcha. I'm worried about the future of Christianity and my denomination in particular

I'm not some athiest coming in to this forum to call out Christian hypocrisy. I really do not have a satisfactory explanation for why people break up denominations and leave congregations over this issue

Op again. Also,in the new testament Jesus himself says that being with a divorced woman is wrong

Matthew 5:32

"..anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Why do churches allow divorce but are so upset about gay relationships when Jesus himself never talked about that?

I should have made that my title in retrospect.

It's in the new testament
It is said by Jesus himself
But churches still choose to ignore that and care about gay people instead

Where do you find the justification for taking the NT literally but not the OT?

Anonymous wrote:I think OP there will never be a satisfactory answer to your question. I'm a Christian and I don't "care" about any specific sin. We all sin. Period. I don't go around spouting that "this" is a sin and "that" is a sin, but if YOU ask me specifically about "this" or "that", then I'm going to have to say yes, it's a sin. Quit trying to play gotcha and just understand that we all sin and true Christians are trying not to and want that everyone know Jesus' love and saving power.

I have to be honest though....i'm never trying to NOT sin by avoiding shrimp. I love shrimp! And I eat it on the regular and still consider myself a Christian. And it never ever occurred to me to "ask forgiveness" for this "sin"...probably b/c it literally never comes up in conversation EVEN IF I'M EATING SHRIMP IN FRONT OF or WITH other Christians. This is literally an issue for NO ONE that I know in mainstream Christian denominations.

But this simply isn't true of gay marriage or gay relationships in most Christian circles. It is definitely considered (or at least was for most mainstream Christian denominations up until about 10 years ago) to be a sinful behavior that cannot be simply "overlooked" without repentance...as my wanton shellfish-eating habit is completely overlooked.

So I agree with OP...if we consider homosexuality as "sin" because it is deemed to be so in the Bible...then why am I not sinning when I eat shrimp. And if I *AM*...then why don't other Christians condemn my practice of shrimp eating and refuse to eat with me so as not to "condone" my sinning?