Why no anti-shrimp laws?

[Evasporque]

Because people LIKE shrimp....

They hated homosexuals.

In case any Christians have difficulty in understanding the link between the Bible and Law.

[el_bryanto]

1. Well also it is generally understood that the dietic laws of the Jewish faith

were not continued into Christianity. Acts 10 : 9-15

9On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

I think you are partially right about homosexuality; insofar as the bible condemns homosexuality it also condemns fornication, but that is treated as a much less serious sin in modern days. Probably because most Christians know a person or two who has had sex outside of marriage (that person might be themselves). It's harder to make fornicators "others," and thus easily condemned.

Bryant

[Moostache]

2. OK...but we can still stone to death disobediant children!!!

That mystical, tacked on passage about a vision (told in the 3rd person by on omniscient narrator, as if the author actually was an eye-witness to the event instead of someone writing about it many, many years later) is just another way the hateful X-tian fundies like to have their cake and eat it too.

It breaks down like this - IF you fancy yourself a true follower of "Jesus", then you need to sell your worldly possessions and follow his earthly example of a life of privation and service to the poor. If NOT, then kindly shut up about telling everyone else what they can do (based on YOUR translation of part of the words of Christ), label yourself a hypocrite and go back to being a cafeteria X-tian (picking only the parts that you like and discarding those you do not).

[el_bryanto]

3. That's convenient - so I have two options - live by your interpretation of the New Testement

or be a hypocrite. That does simplify things somewhat.

Bryant

[The Straight Story]

6. Jesus used that as an example. He didn't tell the centurion (or others) to do that (nt)

[LiberalFighter]

4. Who discontinued it? Jesus or Paul?

I wouldn't trust any writings by Paul.

[el_bryanto]

5. Well it was Luke, actually, but he is closely affiliated with Paul - I think they served together

Romans 8:38-39

38For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

39Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I do like some of Paul's words.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Paul is the anti gay one also. Not Jesus. Paul is also the one who commands women to

keep silent in meetings and all of that sexist stuff. So those who do not follow Paul's entire teaching while claiming the anti gay parts are 'The Word of God' are hypocrites and cherry pickers. Do you think women should stay silent and later ask question only of their spouse at home alone, as Paul commands? If not, then why are other parts of his writings 'The Word of God' and that one, well, optional?

[el_bryanto]

12. The simplest answer is that I'm an enormous hypocrite, like all Christians

An actual answer would be more along the lines of looking at the principals Paul taught without getting too hung up on specific applications of those principals, that possibly made sense in Pauls day but make far less sense today.

Christianity, like most religions, is not as much about a list of rules to follow, but a certain type of person to become. Or that's my opinion anyway - other opinions are available.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

13. You know, I said none of that. I take issue with that tactic.

That's called false witness. If you pick one part of 'The Word' to apply to others, and reject portions for yourself that you don't like you are a hypocrite. If you don't do that, then you are not. That's what I'm saying. You can say what you like. Just do not claim I said it. Thanks.

[el_bryanto]

15. That's an interesting response

I am sorry if I have offended you.

I thought your meaning was pretty clear, and you reiterated it here in this post. If I understand you correctly, one is allowed to adopt Christianity for their own lives, but if they seek to impose that Christianity on others, they need to proscribe everything in the book or else they are hypocritical. Is that accurate?

Bryant

[LiberalFighter]

16. So the principles of Paul should supercede those of Jesus.

In addition, Paul went behind the backs of the disciples in what he was preaching. A man that was never a disciple or even met Jesus except his claim in a vision.

[el_bryanto]

17. That's an awkward way of putting it

But then again I probably don't see as sharp a contrast between Paul and Jesus; my favorite work by Paul is Romans in which he spends a large part of the work trying to explain that all believers are brothers; that Gentiles have as much claim to salvation as Jews. Where there is a conflict, I would use my own judgement, led by the spirit, to figure out what is most correct.

Bryant

[Johonny]

8. The pagan's

In most pagan religions prior to the spread of Christianity moral state laws and religion were not as closely linked as in the Jewish tradition. As Christianity spread mostly to former pagans converted, the concept of following religious God's law did not resonate. Paul stands as a middle ground, feeling many of God's laws in the Bible are meant only for Jews while other laws are laws moral Christians people in right standing with God would keep. Within a few generation biblical writers (mostly in Paul's name) who weren't Jewish and not all that up on biblical law, took that to mean good works were not required at all for right standing with God.

Modern Christians take the ambiguity of the New Testament and its multiple stands on old testament law to basically mix and match to fit their preconceived views on subjects like Homosexuality or eating shrimp.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. I so agree with you.

I like the Gospels and James, the Peters, but they can keep all of Paul's letters. They're responsible for everything that's wrong with Christianity in my opinion.

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. I thought this was going to be about the backdoor cover-up for BP. K&R n/t

[Fumesucker]

9. Short people got no reason..

-Randy Newman

[Taverner]

10. Good point, but needs a little clearer explanation

I would mention the Leviticus prohibition against shrimp, and mixing milk and meat