. The Old Testament is not false- oh contrare, it's all true. But the laws proposed by that half of the Bible are not to be taken seriously, rather the teachings of Jesus should be. Things can be interpreted from those real events, but mostly when they say you should do this or that in the Old Testament that kind of thinking is revoked later in the Bible anyway.
I see what you are saying, but it still doesn't add up. What you are saying is the teachings about events are real, but the teachings about morality and how to live your life aren't true? If this is the case then how did you arrive at that conclusion? Does it say later on in the bible: 'only the events in the Old testiment are true but the rest of the old testiment is complete tosh?'
a few questions
Did you arrive at this conclusion yourself so it fits in with your argument?
in which case
I have not studied to become learned enough to take lessons from the Bible in that manner
I don't think you are qualified to interpret the old testiment yourself as you appear to admit here.
OR like you said here:
The stupid argument was that "the passage in Leviticus is the only thing in the Bible saying homosexuality isn't OK" when there are other parts when someone learned enough reads into it.
you where told this by learned people who understand how the bible works? if so I have a few questions.
1)How do you know that these people are interpreting them correctly and what gives them the right to decide which bits of the old testiment are true i.e
events and which bit aren't true i.e
Morals and
laws.
2)Why where the Morals and Laws included in the old testiment if (to quote you)
'the laws proposed by that half of the Bible are not to be taken seriously'? did the bible need a bit of extra filling out? did they seem to make sense at the time?
Perhaps most importantly are they the word of God?
if the answer is a) yes they are the word of God
Then why are they included if they are not correct, often differenent to the the new testiment or even contradicatory? How on earth could an infalleable god get it wrong the first time so much so that he had to correct himself?
answer b) no they are not the word of God.
In which case how did you determine they are not the word of God? which anonymous figure made up those incorrect teachings on laws and morality and printed them? if so how do you know that the same anonymous figure didn't slip in incorrect teachings about events and happenings? How do you determine that these events are the work of God and are not another incorrect entry by a scriber.
3) How did these learned people learn how to interpret the bible correctly? Did God give them this ability? if so how do you know?
How do you become a learned person? could you become one? Could I become one? What steps need to be taken in order to be able to interpret the bible?
4) How can you say you beleive this to be the case (your view on homosexuality) without discoving the answer for youself, does simply being told by somone else make correct. If you aren't able to interpret it yourself as you said here:
Not all Christian lessons are learnt from looking at what is said exactly in the Bible as it is, lessons are learnt and derived from passages in the Bible, hence the need for Church and things like Bible Study.
to which
Danoff replied 'So, you can't really explain it, but your pastor can.'
To which you replied:
I have not studied to become learned enough to take lessons from the Bible in that manner
Then
how can you possibly say:
. The Old Testament is not false- oh contrare, it's all true. But the laws proposed by that half of the Bible are not to be taken seriously, rather the teachings of Jesus should be. Things can be interpreted from those real events, but mostly when they say you should do this or that in the Old Testament that kind of thinking is revoked later in the Bible anyway.
If you cannot interpret it yourself?
Perhaps more importantly
how can you take this stance:
I see homosexuality as wrong because in the beginning God created a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Man with woman is how He intended it to be, and that's how I think it should be. I have not once used that passage in the Old Testament as my evidence, and this is what my view has always been.
If you cannot interpret the scripture youself and simply rely on being told homosexuality is a sin?
I asked alot of questions here which I am hoping you will take the time to answer, as I have taken the time to pose them. If you do answer them please answer them specificly rather than vaguely.
If you would like to pose any questions in return I will be more than willing to answer them to the best of my ability.
Now please stop talking to me about that topic because I shall just ignore it from now on.
