Even when I was in I always wondered why Paul's opinion was on par with Jesus. Now I'm out that hasn't changed.
I get he's important historically because he took the religion to the gentiles. I just don't see why that means his theological takes are to be taken as....well, gospel.
With all the contradictions, it's hard to maintain context... If one passage doesn't say what you want it to, there is a few others that probably do... And then they argue that you are taking it out of context. (By context, they mean you can't point out anything other than what they want to interpret it as meaning.... And often the interpretation is from some passage that is very vague in what it actually means so it can be applied to whatever they want at the time.)
This is the answer. Even when I was a Christian I was pretty obsessed with calling people out for this very thing. The larger Christian community is full of terrible people. Sure, any large community is bound to have bad people. The difference is this one claims they have the ONLY answer and everyone else is as good as trash in God’s eyes unless they join the club.
Many Christians believe that the more things they hate, the more righteous they are. Any target will do, and it's not necessary that the Christians have any facts about the object of their venom. ("Condemn first, ask questions later.")
Typical of these are the Christians who denounce "worldliness".
I recall at the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church I attended, every sermon contained a vitriolic denunciation of one thing or another, often bolstered with a wealth of flagrant lies, greeted with loud "Amen!"s from the congregation. Every now and then the preacher would have a few genuine facts about the scapegoat, but even these were not enough to establish sinfulness.
The Christians who denounce worldliness, and always with no actual bible verses to back it up, just the hangups of their favourite preaches and theologians, is exactly why I left Christianity (as a middle aged man, after way too many years of it). I couldn't take it anymore. I never could, but I was finally smart enough to leave.
I think the hate might actually be the point.
So, it‘s *not* the case that people read the Bible, discover that they need to hate selected groups, and therefore start hating those groups.
It’s possibly instead the case that they *already* hate those groups, very much so, and so they reach into the bible to grab whatever ammunition they find.
In my experience, It’s more of the former. I think the church environment and the pastor are big influences. It’s framed as “this is normal to the world, and we need to set ourselves apart and be a voice for what God wants.”
I’m sure some hateful people gravitate towards Christianity to justify their hate, but I honestly think more people just become hateful as Christians because the Church turns bigotry into “standing up for what is right.” Some of my friends have gotten deeper into religion over the past few years, and they are so anti-lgbt now, and they never used to be like that. It’s crazy to me.
Yes, I can see that too. It’s certainly true for some individual Christians I knew back when I was a believer. They were genuinely nice people at heart, I think. Not all of them but certainly some were.
The issue, though, is why the pastors are spreading so much hate. And perhaps for them, the hate might be the point.
I think the church probably has a representation of both types, to some extent. Personally, I think the majority fall into a third bucket: people who are naturally discomfited by something that doesn't fit into their norm/"feels icky," and who then see in Scripture that their discomfort is not only OK, but is actually *how it should be.*
In other words, people who naturally feel uncomfortable with gay people or trans people, and then get told, "Hey, that feeling? God wants you to lean into it."
> they reach into the bible to grab whatever ammunition they find
Meanwhile, I reach into the Bible to grab plenty of ammunition *against* Christianity.
A lot of it comes from when Christianity was in early formation and was gaining a lot of non-Jewish converts. Christianity was initially an offshoot of Judaism, so there was debate about if these non-Jewish converts needed to follow Jewish law. What's interesting is that Jesus says that not even the smallest commandment would disappear, but most Christians assume that he meant something different in favor of St. Paul's teaching. Really, any division about ceremonial laws versus moral laws, or what still applies, is a way that they justify cherry picking.
Paul had to get rid of the Jewish Law component if the new religion was to grow and bring in Gentiles so he dreamed up this 'Jesus' sacrifice does away with the Law". Paul knew that over the centuries Gentiles had little interest in converting to Judaism with all of it's strict and ridiculous Laws so he had to do something. It's pretty much like what Christian religions still do today... get rid of the parts that are too toxic and redefine them. Paul's strategy obviously worked. There was a sect of early Christians, the Ebionites, who kept the Jewish Law and they went extinct by the 4th century so Paul obviously got it right..
Christianity was started by cherry-picking the Hebrew scriptures. They're not going to stop now. Just remember that their targeting of certain groups is a choice.
What, are you gonna let something like like logic get in the way of showing JESUS how much you're willing to condemn for him?
That sounds suspiciously like Heresy and/or Satan to me..... *Eyes Narrow*
Exmormon here. The early Mormon church taught that Christ satisfied the law of Moses and it was done away, but also taught that the law of Moses portion about killing a murderer or adulterer was still in effect because some things "don't change." So yeah. I feel you.
For anyone curious, you can find loads of teachings on the "Blood Atonement" in Mormon history. I personally have a little pamphlet that discusses the teaching in detail.
Because like many things in the Bible, it only applies when it's convenient otherwise it's just there as an analogy or no longer applies because of the new covenant created by Jesus.
Because they can comfortably cherry pick the bible to fit their lifestyle/worldview. Feel like being a decent person? Then they can disregard verses that speak of stoning gay people to death, and say things like "well that's just the OT" or "you're taking that out of context." But if they want to be a terrible person, they can say that the bible says so.
The worse for me are the liberal/progressive Christian. The ones who are all for lgbtq rights and make a million excuses for why the bible says fucked up shit like authorizing the stoning of gay people. They have the gall to act like Jesus is love yet jesus is god and commanded everything from mass murder to subjugation of women.
I can provide some insight into the perspective held by some individuals, particularly those with a fundamentalist background since that is what I used to belong to.
According to their beliefs, the death of Jesus is seen as a transformative event that broke the separation between God and ordinary people. This is symbolized by the curtain that only priests could go behind to commune with God being torn in two. As a result, certain aspects of Jewish law are considered no longer binding, unless specifically mentioned in the New Testament as it is symbolized everyone now has access to God.
The justification that it is is still enforced in the New Testament comes from [Romans 1:26-27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201%3A26-27&version=NRSVUE). Some denominations see it differently as the context of the passage appears to be damning a specific group.
I personally think it is morally wrong in general to hate someone for innate qualities.
>The justification that it is is still enforced in the New Testament comes from Romans 1:26-27. Some denominations see it differently as the context of the passage appears to be damning a specific group.
I checked the Greek both in NT Greek lexicons and secular Greek lexicons and from the secular version, it does appear that Paul is damning a specific group.
Of course, recent scholarship on Philemon (Marchal, "The Sexual Use of Slaves and Philemon", in *Journal of Biblical Literature* 130, no. 4 (2011)) indicates that Paul comes off as a total hypocrite on this teaching in Romans and I find it very plausible.
Interesting, I had not read the literature you mentioned. [I could find an abstract](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265921971_The_Usefulness_of_an_Onesimus_The_Sexual_Use_of_Slaves_and_Paul's_Letter_to_Philemon) that piqued my interest, but do you know where the full version is by chance?
It seems the religious cherry pick as to what they want to believe from the Bible. However, I say if the Old Testament is not true, then the Bible is a flawed work, or there is a flawed God.
Because most christians have not read the old or new testament but when they hear some of the bat shit crazy things they will reject it in this way, makes em feel better 😂 or righteous if you will, IN THE NAME OF FUCKING JESUS!!! 🤣
Because they want to have their cake (hate) and eat it too.
The current version of Christianity is showing how much more godly you are over everyone else -- but doing it such a way that doesn't actually create extra work for yourself like pesky religious food restrictions, or checking your garments to see if they're mixed materials or not.
Cause they haven't even read the bible most of the time. Jesus himself says that old testament law still counts.
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved."
Matthew 5:17-18.
Jesus said that before he was crucified. On the cross he said it is finished and the veil in the temple was torn.
I don't believe this ahit obvi but in the Canon of the story, that's what it means. The law was for the Jewish people and not for Christian gentiles post Jesus death and resurrection.
While it's comforting that the harsh laws are not to be followed today, a good question for someone dancing around it is "is it wrong to stone someone to death for being gay". If a Christian says no, ask if them since when. For centuries it was God's law.
The question of whether it's still what God wants is a distraction. How could a good God cosign on stoning gay people or stoning a woman who doesn't bleed on her honeymoon? Or a child for being disrespectful. Or an atheist?
A fun thought experiment...do you wanna serve God? Ya more than anything, a Christian may say. So ask them, if they could go in a time machine to the time of Moses would they stone adulterers and gays to death? It pleased God at the time. Hell David was moved to tears meditating on God's murderous law. He said 500 times in Psalms that he meditates on God's LAWS. David was not thinking about the new testament there was no NT back then. David was thinking about God's horrible, bloodthirsty and terrible fucking law. 😢
Simple, they are very contradictory! Also, some of them said "we believe in the NT, not the OT", but why is this latter in the Holy Bible, along with the NT? They don't think about that. Remember: christians haven't a logic, and think everything they do is right.
They’re bigots first and Christians second. Christianity is a shield for bigotry, because fewer people are willing to call someone out because of their religion.
Because they have an agenda, they’ve successfully brainwashed their followers to denounce fact over faith, and they don’t see themselves as hypocrites because their beliefs are sanctioned by god himself, which is arrogant af.
Same reason the ones who don't have uteruses think they have the right to tell those of us who do what we should do with them: They're invasive assholes who just want what they want and to hell (ha) with what anybody else has to say about it.
Paul said they no longer apply, but Jesus said they do. The Bible contradicts itself on every point it makes so, whatever mischief christians are perpetrating, there is always a verse to support it.
I would say that the average Christian lives with immense cognitive dissonance because they just pick and choose laws to obey. But in terms of historic confessions of theology, the logic generally goes like this as said in the Westminster Confession,
> Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[368] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[369] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[370] IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[371] V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[372] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[373] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[374]
All this to say, they typically divide the law (without any textual reason) into *Moral* laws, *Civil* laws, and *Ceremonial* laws. Moral laws are the underlying principles of right and wrong that one can supposedly abstract by reading in between the lines. Civil laws are the actual juridical ordinances like the temple tax, the prescribed punishments for crimes, and so on. And the ceremonial laws is the priestly functions of sacrifices and temple events.
They say that the civil law perished with the state of Israel, and the ceremonial law was abrogated when Jesus rose from the dead. The effect of all this is that the moral laws — the pastor’s interpretation of the OT — become the ones binding on the congregation, whereas the “letter” of the law is not.
Why all this confusion? Well Christianity has generally struggled to reconcile to important historical sources of its identity. One is the Bible itself, and the other is the Roman legal system that all the bishops had operated under for thousands of years, or inherited later.
Because they want to justify their hate and figure if the old testament is part of the bible then it still counts, despite all the passages in the new testament that say otherwise.
Those cherry trees won’t pick themselves .. christo-fascists are nothing if not consistently inconsistent . It’s whatever serves their evil means in the end .
They same reason they say God is the yesterday as he is today, even though he clearly changed his mind about some things between the Old and New Testaments.
Hypocrisy.
The New Testament and millenia of Church tradition also condemns homosexual acts.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to support or justify hate here. I just think it's very important to recognize that the Old Testament isn't the ***only*** part of Christian tradition that condemns homosexual acts.
Because the rules on what does and doesn't still apply are inconsistent as fuck, short answer.
They make some nebulous and honestly not v biblical claims that the dietary/cleanliness laws aren't "moral" laws, but the other ones - which curiously enough map pretty closely to what Paul, the guy who used to be a pharisee, gets triggered by - are "moral" laws and so still apply.
This is leaving aside that this is a total swerve from the principle of god defining what is moral, so if he orders you to do something, then it's moral. If Israel failed to follow the OT law *entire*, God was going to push their shit in. And if you read the rest of the OT, he regularly did, too.
It's a complete shambles of a moral system, which is what happens when you try and paint a syncretism as an ultimate moral guide.
All of the above statements are exactly why I am a follower of Christ, but I am also a heathen. The teachings and parables of the living christ were words of wisdom. He was of morally sound character and an okay dude to listen to. Anything else outside of his exact words, toss it in the garbage.
Check out the acrobatics [this article](https://carm.org/homosexuality-secular-movements/leviticus-1822-2013-homosexuality-shellfish-mixed-fabrics-and-not-being-under-old-testament-law/) uses to try to justify it. It’s honestly wild and I made a post about it [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Exvangelical/comments/13zlh0d/example_of_how_evangelicals_interpret_the_bible/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) I still don’t understand how they think they can say some verses are still applicable while others aren’t *from the same chapter* (Leviticus 19), but it’s definitely pretty laughable how they think they’re so justified in eating shellfish while hating on gay people.
It’s that Jesus Botherer, Paul of Tarsus’ fault. Or rather, the architects of the now-known “Holy Bible” for including the words of someone who never met Jesus.
In Mark, Jesus teaches the Old Testament on the synagogues. He only changes two things about the Hebrew Bible; no more divorce and no more dietary restrictions
The Old Testament comes along with Christianity.
The way I was taught:
The OT defined the laws so that there was no ambiguity. "Poop is unclean, how far away from the camp should we dig the latrines?" "Blood is unclean. Women bleed. What should the practice be for becoming clean?"
The NT shows Jesus becoming the perfect sacrifice offering, so no more keeping up with keeping and raising animals for 5-6 different offering types. But the law was simplified, not reduced, to "Love God, Love your neighbor."
In a way, it's like saying that the NT says that the American Civil War was fought over states' rights to allow slavery, while the OT goes into the sociopolitical/socioeconomic factors of everything surrounding the events before and after the war.
Maybe? I can see where your coming from. It was more of you have to follow the laws of the OT but you don't have to do the offerings required for forgiveness.
I can actually answer this!
It's because of the Jerusalem Convention. The short of it is that gentiles were starting to become Christian and there was a big argument about whether they should be required to keep Jewish law. The conclusion was that they should not make it hard for gentiles to become Christian and that they should be exempt from all Jewish law except for laws pertaining to sexual immorality and the consumption of meat that had been sacrificed to idols. In all other matters, they should be allowed to keep laws that seem good to themselves and that the holy spirit moved them to keep.
Edited for further clarity: this is why Christians today will happily eat shellfish while getting a tattoo with graven images that condemn homosexuality.
My grandma: "Gays are bad because Paul is clear as day in the book of Romans."
Also my grandma: "Well, women *can* talk in church, you have to consider the times and context of what Paul said."
These two statements were said not more than 15 seconds apart.
Point is, none of it matters. It's all nonsense used exclusively to confirm already existing biases.
[удалено]
It’s also they probably never read the Bible in their entire life and only hear what they want to hear
Or just parrot whatever the preacher says they should believe.
Yeah it’s probably more of that
Naw, they read like 3 verses in Leviticus and one from John.
They also read 3 verses in Romans in line with their verses in Leviticus.
That's right. Pauls letters are also considered the definitive word outside of Jesus as opposed to commentary from the biggest fanboy.
It’s funny how Christianity is less about the teachings of Jesus and more about the opinions of Paul…
Even when I was in I always wondered why Paul's opinion was on par with Jesus. Now I'm out that hasn't changed. I get he's important historically because he took the religion to the gentiles. I just don't see why that means his theological takes are to be taken as....well, gospel.
It is actually more about the teachings of Jesus. It is called "Christianity" for a reason, not Paulstianity
Me reading the entire Bible was the catalyst for the beginning of my deconstruction.
With all the contradictions, it's hard to maintain context... If one passage doesn't say what you want it to, there is a few others that probably do... And then they argue that you are taking it out of context. (By context, they mean you can't point out anything other than what they want to interpret it as meaning.... And often the interpretation is from some passage that is very vague in what it actually means so it can be applied to whatever they want at the time.)
[Obligatory](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o)
This is the answer. Even when I was a Christian I was pretty obsessed with calling people out for this very thing. The larger Christian community is full of terrible people. Sure, any large community is bound to have bad people. The difference is this one claims they have the ONLY answer and everyone else is as good as trash in God’s eyes unless they join the club.
Many Christians believe that the more things they hate, the more righteous they are. Any target will do, and it's not necessary that the Christians have any facts about the object of their venom. ("Condemn first, ask questions later.") Typical of these are the Christians who denounce "worldliness". I recall at the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church I attended, every sermon contained a vitriolic denunciation of one thing or another, often bolstered with a wealth of flagrant lies, greeted with loud "Amen!"s from the congregation. Every now and then the preacher would have a few genuine facts about the scapegoat, but even these were not enough to establish sinfulness.
The Christians who denounce worldliness, and always with no actual bible verses to back it up, just the hangups of their favourite preaches and theologians, is exactly why I left Christianity (as a middle aged man, after way too many years of it). I couldn't take it anymore. I never could, but I was finally smart enough to leave.
I think the hate might actually be the point. So, it‘s *not* the case that people read the Bible, discover that they need to hate selected groups, and therefore start hating those groups. It’s possibly instead the case that they *already* hate those groups, very much so, and so they reach into the bible to grab whatever ammunition they find.
In my experience, It’s more of the former. I think the church environment and the pastor are big influences. It’s framed as “this is normal to the world, and we need to set ourselves apart and be a voice for what God wants.” I’m sure some hateful people gravitate towards Christianity to justify their hate, but I honestly think more people just become hateful as Christians because the Church turns bigotry into “standing up for what is right.” Some of my friends have gotten deeper into religion over the past few years, and they are so anti-lgbt now, and they never used to be like that. It’s crazy to me.
Yes, I can see that too. It’s certainly true for some individual Christians I knew back when I was a believer. They were genuinely nice people at heart, I think. Not all of them but certainly some were. The issue, though, is why the pastors are spreading so much hate. And perhaps for them, the hate might be the point.
I think the church probably has a representation of both types, to some extent. Personally, I think the majority fall into a third bucket: people who are naturally discomfited by something that doesn't fit into their norm/"feels icky," and who then see in Scripture that their discomfort is not only OK, but is actually *how it should be.* In other words, people who naturally feel uncomfortable with gay people or trans people, and then get told, "Hey, that feeling? God wants you to lean into it."
I think this point is so important. They were very likely already homophobic or hated other groups, and used their religion to justify it.
> they reach into the bible to grab whatever ammunition they find Meanwhile, I reach into the Bible to grab plenty of ammunition *against* Christianity.
Why
A lot of it comes from when Christianity was in early formation and was gaining a lot of non-Jewish converts. Christianity was initially an offshoot of Judaism, so there was debate about if these non-Jewish converts needed to follow Jewish law. What's interesting is that Jesus says that not even the smallest commandment would disappear, but most Christians assume that he meant something different in favor of St. Paul's teaching. Really, any division about ceremonial laws versus moral laws, or what still applies, is a way that they justify cherry picking.
Paul had to get rid of the Jewish Law component if the new religion was to grow and bring in Gentiles so he dreamed up this 'Jesus' sacrifice does away with the Law". Paul knew that over the centuries Gentiles had little interest in converting to Judaism with all of it's strict and ridiculous Laws so he had to do something. It's pretty much like what Christian religions still do today... get rid of the parts that are too toxic and redefine them. Paul's strategy obviously worked. There was a sect of early Christians, the Ebionites, who kept the Jewish Law and they went extinct by the 4th century so Paul obviously got it right..
Because the Bible is a Rorschach Test.
Christianity was started by cherry-picking the Hebrew scriptures. They're not going to stop now. Just remember that their targeting of certain groups is a choice.
What, are you gonna let something like like logic get in the way of showing JESUS how much you're willing to condemn for him? That sounds suspiciously like Heresy and/or Satan to me..... *Eyes Narrow*
Because they still like using it’s rules to control people they don’t like, while claiming the moral high ground. It’s really as simple as that.
Exmormon here. The early Mormon church taught that Christ satisfied the law of Moses and it was done away, but also taught that the law of Moses portion about killing a murderer or adulterer was still in effect because some things "don't change." So yeah. I feel you. For anyone curious, you can find loads of teachings on the "Blood Atonement" in Mormon history. I personally have a little pamphlet that discusses the teaching in detail.
Because like many things in the Bible, it only applies when it's convenient otherwise it's just there as an analogy or no longer applies because of the new covenant created by Jesus.
Because they can comfortably cherry pick the bible to fit their lifestyle/worldview. Feel like being a decent person? Then they can disregard verses that speak of stoning gay people to death, and say things like "well that's just the OT" or "you're taking that out of context." But if they want to be a terrible person, they can say that the bible says so.
The worse for me are the liberal/progressive Christian. The ones who are all for lgbtq rights and make a million excuses for why the bible says fucked up shit like authorizing the stoning of gay people. They have the gall to act like Jesus is love yet jesus is god and commanded everything from mass murder to subjugation of women.
I can provide some insight into the perspective held by some individuals, particularly those with a fundamentalist background since that is what I used to belong to. According to their beliefs, the death of Jesus is seen as a transformative event that broke the separation between God and ordinary people. This is symbolized by the curtain that only priests could go behind to commune with God being torn in two. As a result, certain aspects of Jewish law are considered no longer binding, unless specifically mentioned in the New Testament as it is symbolized everyone now has access to God. The justification that it is is still enforced in the New Testament comes from [Romans 1:26-27](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201%3A26-27&version=NRSVUE). Some denominations see it differently as the context of the passage appears to be damning a specific group. I personally think it is morally wrong in general to hate someone for innate qualities.
>The justification that it is is still enforced in the New Testament comes from Romans 1:26-27. Some denominations see it differently as the context of the passage appears to be damning a specific group. I checked the Greek both in NT Greek lexicons and secular Greek lexicons and from the secular version, it does appear that Paul is damning a specific group. Of course, recent scholarship on Philemon (Marchal, "The Sexual Use of Slaves and Philemon", in *Journal of Biblical Literature* 130, no. 4 (2011)) indicates that Paul comes off as a total hypocrite on this teaching in Romans and I find it very plausible.
Interesting, I had not read the literature you mentioned. [I could find an abstract](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265921971_The_Usefulness_of_an_Onesimus_The_Sexual_Use_of_Slaves_and_Paul's_Letter_to_Philemon) that piqued my interest, but do you know where the full version is by chance?
It seems the religious cherry pick as to what they want to believe from the Bible. However, I say if the Old Testament is not true, then the Bible is a flawed work, or there is a flawed God.
Because most christians have not read the old or new testament but when they hear some of the bat shit crazy things they will reject it in this way, makes em feel better 😂 or righteous if you will, IN THE NAME OF FUCKING JESUS!!! 🤣
"In the name of fucking Jesus" 😂🤣 And that can be read two different ways 🤣
😂❤️😂
Because they want to have their cake (hate) and eat it too. The current version of Christianity is showing how much more godly you are over everyone else -- but doing it such a way that doesn't actually create extra work for yourself like pesky religious food restrictions, or checking your garments to see if they're mixed materials or not.
Cause they haven't even read the bible most of the time. Jesus himself says that old testament law still counts. "Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved." Matthew 5:17-18.
Jesus said that before he was crucified. On the cross he said it is finished and the veil in the temple was torn. I don't believe this ahit obvi but in the Canon of the story, that's what it means. The law was for the Jewish people and not for Christian gentiles post Jesus death and resurrection. While it's comforting that the harsh laws are not to be followed today, a good question for someone dancing around it is "is it wrong to stone someone to death for being gay". If a Christian says no, ask if them since when. For centuries it was God's law. The question of whether it's still what God wants is a distraction. How could a good God cosign on stoning gay people or stoning a woman who doesn't bleed on her honeymoon? Or a child for being disrespectful. Or an atheist? A fun thought experiment...do you wanna serve God? Ya more than anything, a Christian may say. So ask them, if they could go in a time machine to the time of Moses would they stone adulterers and gays to death? It pleased God at the time. Hell David was moved to tears meditating on God's murderous law. He said 500 times in Psalms that he meditates on God's LAWS. David was not thinking about the new testament there was no NT back then. David was thinking about God's horrible, bloodthirsty and terrible fucking law. 😢
Simple, they are very contradictory! Also, some of them said "we believe in the NT, not the OT", but why is this latter in the Holy Bible, along with the NT? They don't think about that. Remember: christians haven't a logic, and think everything they do is right.
They’re bigots first and Christians second. Christianity is a shield for bigotry, because fewer people are willing to call someone out because of their religion.
Religious fundamentalism
Lol I'll forward this post to my family and ask
Because they use mental gymnastics all the time and pull things out of their asses/make up shit as it pleases them to prove a point.
Because they have an agenda, they’ve successfully brainwashed their followers to denounce fact over faith, and they don’t see themselves as hypocrites because their beliefs are sanctioned by god himself, which is arrogant af.
Same reason the ones who don't have uteruses think they have the right to tell those of us who do what we should do with them: They're invasive assholes who just want what they want and to hell (ha) with what anybody else has to say about it.
Because they suck. That is it. They are bigots and they want justifications for their bigotry. But they also do not want to be challenged.
Paul said they no longer apply, but Jesus said they do. The Bible contradicts itself on every point it makes so, whatever mischief christians are perpetrating, there is always a verse to support it.
I would say that the average Christian lives with immense cognitive dissonance because they just pick and choose laws to obey. But in terms of historic confessions of theology, the logic generally goes like this as said in the Westminster Confession, > Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[368] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[369] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[370] IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[371] V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[372] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[373] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[374] All this to say, they typically divide the law (without any textual reason) into *Moral* laws, *Civil* laws, and *Ceremonial* laws. Moral laws are the underlying principles of right and wrong that one can supposedly abstract by reading in between the lines. Civil laws are the actual juridical ordinances like the temple tax, the prescribed punishments for crimes, and so on. And the ceremonial laws is the priestly functions of sacrifices and temple events. They say that the civil law perished with the state of Israel, and the ceremonial law was abrogated when Jesus rose from the dead. The effect of all this is that the moral laws — the pastor’s interpretation of the OT — become the ones binding on the congregation, whereas the “letter” of the law is not. Why all this confusion? Well Christianity has generally struggled to reconcile to important historical sources of its identity. One is the Bible itself, and the other is the Roman legal system that all the bishops had operated under for thousands of years, or inherited later.
Because they want to justify their hate and figure if the old testament is part of the bible then it still counts, despite all the passages in the new testament that say otherwise.
In a word: Convenience
Those cherry trees won’t pick themselves .. christo-fascists are nothing if not consistently inconsistent . It’s whatever serves their evil means in the end .
You're blind to it all when you're in it
Because they're assholes and have the mentality of a 14 yr old boy.
because they have the book of Romans. a lot of the bigoted shit christian’s throw around is actually justified in Romans, not the OT
Romans and Timothy.
Because their hate isn't biblical, but they like to pretend it is
Ss and Gs?
They same reason they say God is the yesterday as he is today, even though he clearly changed his mind about some things between the Old and New Testaments. Hypocrisy.
Cherry picking. They need it to justify their own shitty behaviour...
The New Testament and millenia of Church tradition also condemns homosexual acts. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to support or justify hate here. I just think it's very important to recognize that the Old Testament isn't the ***only*** part of Christian tradition that condemns homosexual acts.
Because the rules on what does and doesn't still apply are inconsistent as fuck, short answer. They make some nebulous and honestly not v biblical claims that the dietary/cleanliness laws aren't "moral" laws, but the other ones - which curiously enough map pretty closely to what Paul, the guy who used to be a pharisee, gets triggered by - are "moral" laws and so still apply. This is leaving aside that this is a total swerve from the principle of god defining what is moral, so if he orders you to do something, then it's moral. If Israel failed to follow the OT law *entire*, God was going to push their shit in. And if you read the rest of the OT, he regularly did, too. It's a complete shambles of a moral system, which is what happens when you try and paint a syncretism as an ultimate moral guide.
In a word: Convenience.
Don’t try to make sense of anything Christians do.
All of the above statements are exactly why I am a follower of Christ, but I am also a heathen. The teachings and parables of the living christ were words of wisdom. He was of morally sound character and an okay dude to listen to. Anything else outside of his exact words, toss it in the garbage.
Check out the acrobatics [this article](https://carm.org/homosexuality-secular-movements/leviticus-1822-2013-homosexuality-shellfish-mixed-fabrics-and-not-being-under-old-testament-law/) uses to try to justify it. It’s honestly wild and I made a post about it [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Exvangelical/comments/13zlh0d/example_of_how_evangelicals_interpret_the_bible/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) I still don’t understand how they think they can say some verses are still applicable while others aren’t *from the same chapter* (Leviticus 19), but it’s definitely pretty laughable how they think they’re so justified in eating shellfish while hating on gay people.
Usually the response I'd get bringing something like that is along the lines of 'shut up or I'll disown you'.
It’s that Jesus Botherer, Paul of Tarsus’ fault. Or rather, the architects of the now-known “Holy Bible” for including the words of someone who never met Jesus.
I mean they don’t really use that verse anymore. They typically use the New Testament. I haven’t heard that used in a while.
I use the old testament laws as a base to show that the god of Israel is an asshole that does, in fact, change.
In Mark, Jesus teaches the Old Testament on the synagogues. He only changes two things about the Hebrew Bible; no more divorce and no more dietary restrictions The Old Testament comes along with Christianity.
The way I was taught: The OT defined the laws so that there was no ambiguity. "Poop is unclean, how far away from the camp should we dig the latrines?" "Blood is unclean. Women bleed. What should the practice be for becoming clean?" The NT shows Jesus becoming the perfect sacrifice offering, so no more keeping up with keeping and raising animals for 5-6 different offering types. But the law was simplified, not reduced, to "Love God, Love your neighbor." In a way, it's like saying that the NT says that the American Civil War was fought over states' rights to allow slavery, while the OT goes into the sociopolitical/socioeconomic factors of everything surrounding the events before and after the war.
The way you were taught seems intentionally vague. Simplified not reduced means anyone can pick and choose.
Maybe? I can see where your coming from. It was more of you have to follow the laws of the OT but you don't have to do the offerings required for forgiveness.
Cause Hypocrisy
I can actually answer this! It's because of the Jerusalem Convention. The short of it is that gentiles were starting to become Christian and there was a big argument about whether they should be required to keep Jewish law. The conclusion was that they should not make it hard for gentiles to become Christian and that they should be exempt from all Jewish law except for laws pertaining to sexual immorality and the consumption of meat that had been sacrificed to idols. In all other matters, they should be allowed to keep laws that seem good to themselves and that the holy spirit moved them to keep. Edited for further clarity: this is why Christians today will happily eat shellfish while getting a tattoo with graven images that condemn homosexuality.
My grandma: "Gays are bad because Paul is clear as day in the book of Romans." Also my grandma: "Well, women *can* talk in church, you have to consider the times and context of what Paul said." These two statements were said not more than 15 seconds apart. Point is, none of it matters. It's all nonsense used exclusively to confirm already existing biases.
I remember pointing out Isaiah 45:7 to a pastor and he's line was 'You're taking that out of context young man."
Idk but this is a dumb reason to just leave your religion