spurly

Oh, so far from the truth. You know why I haven't even considered this subject much? Because under the new covenant, all foods are pure. In other words - Jesus declared that diet does not matter anymore. So why go into a hard and fast study of all the dietary restrictions in the OT.

Why were those restrictions there? Probably for two reasons. One was a health reason - uncooked or undercooked pork and shellfish can be very dangerous. The other reason is that the people of Israel were to be holy - thus they were to stay away from unclean animals who ate carcasses, etc.

But in the end, today, those restrictions have been lifted. And because of that there has never been a need to study them much. It is not because, as you say, that I, as a Christian, "use the Bible only as it suits them, to reinforce the opinions they already hold, while claiming that they hold those opinions because it's in the Bible". My beliefs are constantly challenged, and I change whenever I am convinced I hold a wrong view.

Kevin

orac

Let me see if I understand this: Jesus put effort into saying that it's ok to eat pigs after all, but he forgot to mention that hating people for being gay is a bad idea?

Or could it be that, as Jesus said, the old testament law still applies?

That suggests that the laws as laid out in leviticus are still valid. (Yes, you have to be sinless before you start stoning someone, but that doesn't mean that christians are allowed to be gay, or to approve of any form of homosexuality.)

Of course, if that's inconvienent, you're free to ignore that bit of the bible.


The consistency and changelessness of God (eg: Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:1, James 1:17) is simply amazing.

Btw, in case you missed my point there, I'll be more clear: If not eating pigs is an attribute of holy people, why did God suddenly decide that it was perfectly moral, after all? Why can't he just make up his mind, then tell us what the rules are?

christ-on-a-stick

Kevin, Um... why didn't he tell them that then?

Why bother making it out to be a "sin", "immoral", "unholy" and all that - why not just say "hey, people, uncooked or undercooked pork and shellfish can be very dangerous, mmkay, so don't eat that stuff? Oh, and stay away from the animals that eat carcasses, that'll make you *real* sick"?

Yahweh seems to have an issue with being direct and to the point.

spurly

I am not ignoring any of the Bible. Any serious Bible student will tell you that the law was simply a tutor to bring us to Christ. Many laws in the OT were simply ritual laws that foreshadowed what was to come.

When the Christ finally came, those laws became unnecessary. Such were the dietary restrictions. They pointed to Christ and were an effort to keep Israel different from those around them. Now that Christ has come, the ritual laws of the OT are not binding on us today.

However the moral laws of the Old Covenant are.

I hope this clears things up.

Ensign Steve

Thank you, orac. My point was that there reason people choose to ignore the parts of Lev. about beard cutting and fiber combing, but selectively choose to leave in the part about being gay. And that reason is not "buh-cuz the bible sez so!"

And Kevin, I intentionally qualified the actions of christians by saying it was something that some christians do, because I have learned, in my short time on this board, that you are not like some of the others I've met, and I did not want you to think I automatically assume you, as a christian, are one way that you are not. Thanks for noticing.

Jen

christ-on-a-stick

Kevin, how exactly - using what objective criteria - has it been decided which laws are "ritual" and which laws are "moral"?

spurly

That's a good question christ-on-a-stick. And one that needs to be asked and answered. I am not sure that I have the answer to end all other questions - as a matter of fact I am sure I don't - but I will try to answer you to the best of my ability.

The purpose of the Old Covenant was to work through the nation of Israel to bring about the salvation of the world through Christ. In order to do that, Israel would have to be holy, which basically means that they would have to be pure, clean, and righteous. Nothing unclean could be found in Israel. Why? Because God was going to live among them. First in the tabernacle and then in the temple. And if God was going to live among them to bring about the salvation of the world through Christ - then they would have to be pure to the nth degree.

The purpose of the Old Covenant was keeping Israel pure, so God could continue to work through them to bring about the salvation of the world through Christ.

In order to do that he set up both ritual laws (which applied specifically to the Old Covenant Jews and proselytes to Judaism) and moral laws (which applied to the Jews, but also apply to all mankind). The ritual laws include things like the OT sacrificial system, regulations for OT priests and temple worship, and other laws that were simply meant to make Israel distinct and pure from defilement (i.e., not marrying non-Israelites unless they were a convert to Judaism, etc.). Thus laws like how to wear one's hair, tassels on the garments, etc., all fall in the ritual category.

The moral laws, however, were laws that applied both to the Jews and to everyone else. Some of these laws include "Do not murder", "Do not commit adultery", "Do not steal", "Do not envy", etc. These laws did not particularly apply to only Israel, but they applied to the entire human race.

Another way to know which is which is by looking at how the laws were interpreted by Christ and the first church in the NT, who were the ones who were inspired by the one who fulfilled the law.

Yet a third way to see which laws are moral laws is to look and see what principles and laws were in effect before the Mosaic covenant was put into effect (i.e., in the book of Genesis). There were moral laws that GOd expected his people to abide by there that superseded the Mosaic covenant instituted in Exodus.

Yes, some laws were specifically applicable to the Old Covenant - those are not bound on Christians today.

It's sort of like laws that are still on the book in some town, cities, and states that don't apply at all to our time today. They were written for people who lived during another time. Laws about hitching horses, etc.

Like I said, I don't know if this is the definitive, complete, answer to your question. But at least it is a start.

Kevin

spurly

Thanks for the kind words.

Kevin

spurly

Yep. I guess we went to different churches. Jesus, who instituted the new covenant under which Christians live, did not advocate violence toward sinners, no matter what sin they were participating in. As a matter of fact, the ones he got the most upset at were the religous hypocrites who were in charge in Israel.

I am curious as to what type of church you went to that taught violence against homosexuals. Was it a general teaching of the church, or just one man out in left field's opinion.

Kevin

christ-on-a-stick

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for the reply - I will respond in more detail tomorrow but one quick question for you to chew on for the moment: Do you consider incest to be a sin? I think that most Christians today do, and people in NT and a large portion of OT times would have as well.

However, in Genesis, it seems clear that the only way for Adam & Eve's offspring to.. multiply would have been, well, through incest.

Is incest a sin or not? If so, why wasn't it originally (in Genesis)? Would this not fall under the "moral law" category?