[achtung]

First you have to understand that just like any other world religion, each faction/sect has their own view on scripture and their own interpretation of it.  Even geographically individual churches and the people in them will have differing opinions about doctrine.  Don't assume just because you've read the Bible and decided on your own that it doesn't make sense and has loads of contradictions that you know what an individual Christian believes.  The difference is, you don't walk outside and see Christians stoning children who curse or hanging homosexuals wherever they are found.

If you WANT this to turn into a theological discussion, then so be it, but be prepared to receive all kinds of differing opinions regarding it.

That's what makes Christianity, as well as most religions, so ridiculous IMO.

They can use whatever rule best suits their side of an argument at the time, and deny the other rules as "improperly interpreted", or they can just claim "I don't believe that part".  All of this being in a book written thousands of years ago, translated many times, and not complete.  The versions of the Bible present today have been edited without remorse by the Catholic church and other people/institutions to give them a power push when they needed it.  If I were a Christian myself, I wouldn't hold it to be of much value.

So really, there is no "right" answer to the question from a religious standpoint.  TrashMan and G0atmaster will continue falling back on obscure rules and rescinding them until they feel they've won.

[Hazaanko]

That's what makes Christianity, as well as most religions, so ridiculous IMO.

They can use whatever rule best suits their side of an argument at the time, and deny the other rules as "improperly interpreted", or they can just claim "I don't believe that part".  All of this being in a book written thousands of years ago, translated many times, and not complete.  The versions of the Bible present today have been edited without remorse by the Catholic church and other people/institutions to give them a power push when they needed it.  If I were a Christian myself, I wouldn't hold it to be of much value.

So really, there is no "right" answer to the question from a religious standpoint.  TrashMan and G0atmaster will continue falling back on obscure rules and rescinding them until they feel they've won.

I actually agree with you (at least to a certain extent).  I would strongly disagree that it is "ridiculous."  But it certainly is a problem.  But it is the same problem that plagues virtually every aspect of the human condition.

For the most part, however, the majority of Christians agree (as do other world religions), on base doctrine.  Its -usually- the smaller things that are argued.

[TrashMan]

But just to be clear on this. Any laws from the old testament is null and void unless restated in the new testament, right?

Tehnicly, IIRC Christ said that he didn't come to re-write everything, but to fill in the blanks..or something in that matter.

One thing to note kaj, thousands of theologists have debatated this issue back and forth before coming to a decision. The Churchs public views aren't the product of someones whim, but of a long (and sometimes heated) debate.

[G0atmaster]

No kidding.  Wars have been fought over this stuff.

In essentials, unity.  In non-essentials, liberty.  In all things, charity (love).

Exactly what TrashMan said.  You don't get it.  Homosexuality is bad.  Being disobedient is bad.

Only, people don't have to get publicly executed for it anymore, because Christ was the end-all public execution.  That's what I believe.  It's the same as what I've been saying all along.  God loves homosexuals.  God hates homosexuality. 

The laws of the Old Testament are not void.  Neither, for that matter, are their punishments, generally speaking.  It's just not the one who commits the crime who gets punished anymore.  Christ's crucifixion counts for all the dove and lamb sacrifices, all the stonings, beatings, lashings and executions that have ever and ever need to be carried out, according to God's law.  The real question is, how much of Christ's punishment do you want to have in your name?  (also something I stated before)

Cmon, people, you gotta at least read what I say in order to try and poke holes in it.

[karajorma]

So by that argument all the old stuff in the Old Testament is still valid? So women are committing a sin by wearing men's clothing? By having a period? By having sex during their period? By being raped and not screaming for help?

According to what you're saying those sins still sins, right?

While I'm at it why is slavery no longer considered moral?

[G0atmaster]

point to me verses that say having a period is a sin. 

Why was slavery ever considered moral?

Anyway, all of this is besides the point!  It's not about avoiding sin for the sake of avoiding sin.  It's about loving God.  If something as silly as not having sex with a woman while she's having her period is going make you want to stay out of the Kingdom of God, you seriously need to reevaluate your priorities.

[vyper]

Being disobedient is bad.

So is the self-evident purpose of this mentality being taught to the masses clear enough for you all now?

Christ's crucifixion counts for all the dove and lamb sacrifices, all the stonings, beatings, lashings and executions that have ever and ever need to be carried out, according to God's law.

Ooookay there batman slow down. You're saying if Christ was never crucified we would have to have committed even more atrocities against our fellow man in the name of god?

[colecampbell666]

That's what makes Christianity, as well as most religions, so ridiculous IMO.

They can use whatever rule best suits their side of an argument at the time, and deny the other rules as "improperly interpreted", or they can just claim "I don't believe that part".  All of this being in a book written thousands of years ago, translated many times, and not complete.  The versions of the Bible present today have been edited without remorse by the Catholic church and other people/institutions to give them a power push when they needed it.  If I were a Christian myself, I wouldn't hold it to be of much value.

So really, there is no "right" answer to the question from a religious standpoint.  TrashMan and G0atmaster will continue falling back on obscure rules and rescinding them until they feel they've won.

This is what Muslim radicalists are using to justify their Jihad, and what some Christians are using to vindicate their decision of retaliating.

[G0atmaster]

Being disobedient is bad.

So is the self-evident purpose of this mentality being taught to the masses clear enough for you all now?

Christ's crucifixion counts for all the dove and lamb sacrifices, all the stonings, beatings, lashings and executions that have ever and ever need to be carried out, according to God's law.

Ooookay there batman slow down. You're saying if Christ was never crucified we would have to have committed even more atrocities against our fellow man in the name of god?

"The wages of Sin is Death..."  That's exactly what I'm saying.  Where there is sin, there is death.  Death came into the world because of one man's pride.   "But the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."  Hence, that's no longer necessary, the fine has been paid.

[karajorma]

point to me verses that say having a period is a sin. 

Leviticus 15:19 onwards
 19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

 20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.

 24 " 'If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.

 25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

 28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

Anyway, all of this is besides the point!  It's not about avoiding sin for the sake of avoiding sin.  It's about loving God.  If something as silly as not having sex with a woman while she's having her period is going make you want to stay out of the Kingdom of God, you seriously need to reevaluate your priorities.

Yes but based on what you seem to be saying loving God does not preclude slave trading but does preclude being gay. Or a woman wearing men's clothes apparently.

[TrashMan]

So is the self-evident purpose of this mentality being taught to the masses clear enough for you all now?

..said the kettle to the pot.

Ooookay there batman slow down. You're saying if Christ was never crucified we would have to have committed even more atrocities against our fellow man in the name of god?

Did he say that?
You're strething this pretty far. No, it doesn't mean that.
You seem to forget that those were different times and different approaches were required. I wouldn't also be surprised if a few local customs or laws were also written down. That is also why the New Testament takes precedence.


@ Kaj, where does ti say she is comitting a sin? It's sez she is unclean.
Back in those days the Bible was more than just a spiritual handbook, it was also a life guidebook. So clean your sheets and clothes. That a bad thing according to you? Oh, lets not forget how supersitsious people were back then.

[jr2]

@ Kaj, where does ti say she is comitting a sin? It's sez she is unclean.
Back in those days the Bible was more than just a spiritual handbook, it was also a life guidebook. So clean your sheets and clothes. That a bad thing according to you?

True, that. 

[karajorma]

@ Kaj, where does ti say she is comitting a sin? It's sez she is unclean.
Back in those days the Bible was more than just a spiritual handbook, it was also a life guidebook. So clean your sheets and clothes. That a bad thing according to you? Oh, lets not forget how supersitsious people were back then.

I knew I should have only posted the first and last verses.

28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

[vyper]

So is the self-evident purpose of this mentality being taught to the masses clear enough for you all now?

..said the kettle to the pot.

Yeah er... what? I fail to see the point you're making mate, how am I being hypocritical?

Ooookay there batman slow down. You're saying if Christ was never crucified we would have to have committed even more atrocities against our fellow man in the name of god?

Did he say that?
You're stretching this pretty far. No, it doesn't mean that.
You seem to forget that those were different times and different approaches were required. I wouldn't also be surprised if a few local customs or laws were also written down. That is also why the New Testament takes precedence.

Well - yes he did say that and also responded with:

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Where there is sin, there is death.

Also, in regards to the New Testament taking precedent, I think certain Protestants would have issue with you on that assertion.

[G0atmaster]

About sin being punishable by death, that's what I thought you meant by "atrocities," stoning people for prostitution, poking peoples' eyes out for stealing livestock, things like that.

[vyper]

About sin being punishable by death, that's what I thought you meant by "atrocities," stoning people for prostitution, poking peoples' eyes out for stealing livestock, things like that.

That pretty much sums up my definition in this context.

[G0atmaster]

yes, the crucifixion of Christ took care of that.

[vyper]

So is, therefore, capital punishment unnecessary?

[Snail]

So is, therefore, capital punishment unnecessary?

Doesn't matter.

If we're bringing God into the equation, I think only he has the ultimate knowledge of judgment.

[G0atmaster]

I personally don't believe in capital punishment, but for an almost entirely different reason.  Remember, the State is not a Christian one, but in a Christian society, there would be no place for capital punishment.  There'd even be no place for the crimes that are punished by capital punishment in our current social model.