[Ceadrath]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I'm more interested in WHY Christians don't believe everything in the Bible. If they choose to ignore certain elements of it, then what is the reason for ignoring this element and not the other. If it turns out there is no logical* system for choosing which parts to believe and which to not, it may be summised that it is not religious belief but a personal one masquarading in the guise of a diety.

*as far as logic can be applied to a work of fiction

I take it you grew up in a predominently protestant country? Your placing far too much emphasis on the bible itself. Things such as sacred tradition, papal bulls, and ecumenical councils are considered by the majority of christians to be of equal importance to the bible itself.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Independant critical thought is fine but it seems wholly inconsistant that people will campaign against homosexuals but not at the farmer who grows two crops in the same field. Either the laws of God in the OT are applicable or thay are not.

If they are applicable and such things are sins against God, why would any Christian not follow the rules? If you're ignoring the word of God, why call yourself a Christian?

i'd imagine that some church council or pope over the last 2000 years decided that gays were in for teh hate whilst growing two crops in the same field was reasonable.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Don't you see the absurdity of a religion which is supposedly the creation of God and then allowing man to change it?

not really, it's really no more absurd than blindly following some words that were written down by men over thousands of years then allowing some more people to pick and choose which bits they wanted in, then deciding to call it the bible and burning anyone who disagrees, which you seem to think should happern.

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I'm merely attempting to work out the logical reasoning for why certain parts of the OT are treated as Gospel whilst other parts are not. I'm talking about precisely the kinds of sins which 'liberal' culture has dismissed as ludicrous.

I am specifically NOT referring to parts of the Bible which science has debunked (i.e. Genesis) nor parts which deal with miracles as these depend on faith which is something I'm not particularly interested in at the moment.

I have no issue with people who want to follow only part of the Bible as I have no issue at all with personal religion as such, just the organised ones. I would just like to know the dogmatic reasons why certain parts of the OT (such as homos are evil) are followed whilst others (farmers planting 2 crops in the same field are evil) are not.

Two thousand years of theological debate. When treveler said you can pick and choose, it's not quite as blase as deciding which ones work for you today, but depending on your denomination their is a great degree of variance. As i said in my first post, their is a huge amount of interpretation, and what people choose to believe is ultimetly up to them, and i have no doubt that they can justify themselves in some way.


As the rest of the stuff you posted seems to just go on a bit i'll just sum up here. As i said, you seem to be under the impression that the bible is the bee's kness of church doctrine, it's not. It was only really the protestant reformation that gave it a greater importance. The vatican and church councils had an equal role in defining what to believe in the past as the bible itself. Yes, this has allowed for corruption and manipulation of the scriptures for the purposes of the popes/church in the past, but then any institution which has/had the power and influence of the church is unlikely to remain un-political. Thats one of the reasons that we had the protestant reformation, who wanted to go back to the scriptures as the word of god, to cut out the corruption of the catholic church at the time, and why if you live in a protestant country then your going to place more emphasis on the bible then most do.