English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...but it also says people shouldn't eat shellfish or pork. Or charge interest on loans. Oh yeah, and should kill witches. Funny thing, when one points out the hypocrisy of people ignoring those laws, many are quick to point out that they are in the Old Testament and are thus superceded by the NT. The problem is all the stuff proscribing against gays is in the OT as well. Hmmm. Pick any cherries lately?

2007-04-28 09:34:23 · 23 answers · asked by AmigaJoe 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

23 answers

Whoa, I'm in the Old Testiment and the New Testiment too! I feel honored that someone would write about me. Are there any dating tips in there for me too? Gee, as a life long Pagan I have never had any Pagan books written with me in mind. This almost makes me want to become a Christian. But I just checked with the Lord and Lady and they told me that Christians really don't like me and I have to be liked if I am to feel da love!

2007-04-28 10:18:00 · answer #1 · answered by humanrayc 4 · 0 0

Yes, the Bible says that.

This is an OLD theme: give it a rest. If you check 'Yahoo Answers', I'm sure you will find this identical or a similar question, AND NUMEROUS ANSWERS.

I will, however, take you up on the statement : "The problem is all the stuff proscribing against gays is in the OT as well. Hmmm." Evidently, you don't know your Bible. It is also in the New Testament.

Fine, I don't eat shellfish or pork, I don't charge interest on loans, I kill witches. Do I have your permission to kill homosexuals, also?

2007-04-28 09:50:23 · answer #2 · answered by flandargo 5 · 0 0

Eating shellfish and pork is prohibited in the Old Testament, but the New Testament's teachings supercede and replace them.

It doesn't work that way with homosexuality, though. In both the Old and New Testaments, it's flatly and clearly condemned. There's your difference.

The Bible nowhere forbids charging interest for loans in the modern sense. Thousands of years ago, people took loans only as a last resort -- if their crops had failed, for instance, and they needed the money to keep themselves and their families alive.

In such a case, of course it was wrong to profit on another person's misfortune by charging interest on a life-saving loan.

Today, though, we don't take loans out for that reason.

So, nobody's picking cherries here. I'm afraid to say that your arguments are very much off-base, on several levels.

.

2007-04-28 09:41:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

We need to distinguish between spiritual laws and temporal laws, for lack of better terms. There are some laws that have to do with the temporal, superficial conditions of life at the time. Laws against eating certain "unclean" animals were superceded in the New Testament because they were not moral/spiritual issues and they no longer applied. Although some laws in the Old Testament are no longer applicable in New Testament times, there are laws that are eternal and essential to morality. Commandments such as prohibitions against lying and stealing deal with fundamental moral issues and will always remain. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" falls into this category, as do other laws regarding sexuality. Homosexuality was condemned in the Old Testament, and that did not change in the New Testament because it deals with fundamental moral issues.
When we realize the distinction between fundamental and superficial commandments, we are not just picking and choosing. The New Testament suggestion that women should not cut their hair was a superficial issue pertaining to cultural realities of the time, while "love your neighbor" is always applicable.

2007-04-28 09:49:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No. It states that the homosexual act is an abomination before God. For the dietary proscriptions, the reason given was to set the Israelites apart from other nations. The destruction of witches was the punishment for the practice of witchcraft by Israelites as a crime against the theocratic rule. It does not prohibit charging interest, it prohibits usury which is an abusive practice still done by loan sharks

2007-04-28 09:41:34 · answer #5 · answered by Arnon 6 · 2 1

Oh, you forgot that (Deuteronomy 22:11) forbids wearing a material made of wool and linen, but (Leviticus 19:19) says it's an abomination to wear any blended material, period. Having sex with a woman while she’s on her period is also an abomination. (Lev 18:19) So is remarrying one's wife after she's had another husband in between (Deut 24:4)
Of course, when something THEY do is shown to be an abomination, many abominators (who condemn OTHERS based on quotes from the Bible) will try to claim that that’s not what the Bible MEANT. (So now the Bible is suddenly open for re-interpretation--and of course, it will always be in THEIR favor.) So why do active abominators continue to refer to the Bible when condemning homosexuals? Are they unaware of their own abominations detailed in the same scriptures? Or are they simply counting on their audience being unaware? My guess is it's simply that they're hypocrites.

2007-04-29 07:58:10 · answer #6 · answered by Jess H 7 · 1 0

The problem is ,although we don't have to keep Kosher any more.We do have to follow the N.T. and it says in Romans 1 as well as other places,that Homosexuality is not right.That's your point isn't it?The O.T doesn't prohibit multiple wives ,but Paul says an 'Elder'should be the husband of one wife.Then you have to differentiate between "Local " customs and just customs of the times.Like in the Gentile world a man did not cover his head in Church but the Jews always wore a prayer shawl.So,nothing's "Cut and dry" but I think there is enough ,calling homosexuality wrong to make a case.It is a sin like any other.

2007-04-28 09:44:45 · answer #7 · answered by AngelsFan 6 · 1 0

Maybe in the next version of the bible they'll take out the whole interdiction against homosexual acts. Then that version will supersede the OT and NT and any other T they have.

2007-04-28 09:48:42 · answer #8 · answered by phe 3 · 0 1

Yes, these beliefs were in the old testament. These were ways that we as humans could pay for original sin. It also said for us to make animal sacrifices. After Jesus died for our sins, we did not need to do these things anymore. However, after Jesus' death, St. Paul professed that it was unchristian for one man to lay with another. That is why it's a sin. Don't get me wrong, I am not a holy roler that is going to damn all homosexuals to hell. I have no problem even being friends with them. I just don't agree with their lifestyle. God will judge all of us, and I am not here to judge, just to live the best life that I can and hope that I go to heaven.

2007-04-28 09:42:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

All the stuff proscribing against gays is NOT simply in the OT.
The essential matters were repeated in the NT.
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 & Romans 1:26,27

2007-04-28 09:41:48 · answer #10 · answered by Uncle Thesis 7 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers