Quote:
Originally Posted by Phang
'liberal Christians' does not mean liberals who are Christians.
[/i]
I'm trying to see how this doesnt answer your question. Presumably you aren't taking a revolutionary new 'Religious hierarchies never have political agendas' approach?
|
You're really starting to spoil my fun.
I shall state it once again. I would like to know how a Christian reconciles getting rid of certain parts of the book using NT as a reason and not getting rid of other parts of the OT which, presumably, should also be discarded.
Now, if we go along with the Travler 'people pick and choose which bits of the OT to believe' then we find that what you in fact have is a person who has certain beliefs who then picks bits of the OT to justify themselves. I find this difficult to call 'faith' in any way as it is a largely incoherent way of dissecting a Holy book. Even the Devil can quote scripture to suit his needs.
Whilst it is obvious that religious institutions and people with vested interests will use whatever indoctrinating device is available to hand I'm not so sure this is true of the vast majority of people who refer to themselves as 'Christians'.
I would like to see a Christian who believes the OT is essentialy null and void explain why homosexuality is a sin, but wearing a garment made of two different materials, is not. This particularly interests me seeing as 'God hates gays' was eradicated as a 'judicial' element of the OT, which was completed.