ChristiansUnite Forums

I try hard to be a good christian, but find it difficult to abide by all of the bible's teachings.  I find the laws laid out in leviticus particularily challenging, as in todays age, I do not neccesarily feel that eating shelfish is an abomination.  However, since the holy bible is god's word, and god is omnicient, and is a perfect being, how can his word be in error?  Also, Leviticus states that is ok for me to do things like have slaves and sell my daughters, which I can't imagine are justifyable things, but again, how can god's word be mistaken, and how can I justify following only some parts of the bible ?  Maybe someone out there can help me with this problem.

thanks,

Thomas2004

Many of the laws and rules that you speak of in the Old Testament was under the old covenant. We have a new covenant with God through Jesus Christ. As for what to eat the Bible tells us:

Mat 6:25  Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Rom 14:2  For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Can't the change in tone be seen as people realizing that things like shelfish aren't neccesarily bad for you?  It seems like sort of a trivial thing, but I can't see God swapping up his stance on the big oyster contoversy just on a whim.

Change in tone?

Perahps change in tone was a bit ambiguous.  to be more clear to this very republican sounding group (I've been reading alot of other posts)  I should have said: why does god flip-flp on these issues?  Abomination is a pretty strong word to use in relation to clams.  So, if they were so sinfull in the original covenat, why are they cool now?  did Jesus dig mussels? Furthermore, if we are under a new covenant, does that mke everything in Leviticus obsolete? or do I have to pick and chose?

I questioned "change in tone" as that is a very popular term amongst atheists.

With all due respect, I think the term "change in tone" is a reletively common phrase througout most of the english speaking world.  I have not known it to have any particular religious affiliations.  But I think arguing the semantics of my comment is missing the point a bit.

"I questioned "change in tone" as that is a very popular term amongst atheists."

don't think i've heard that one....you must visit different places from me

Nor had I heard anything of the sort Kalthzar.  I think the "pastors" post was more an attempt to side step my question by accusing me of being an atheist.  Perhaps "change in tone was not the perfect verbiage, but I don't think that makes me an abomination  Maybe I've got it all wrong though.

I didn't mean to be offensive or evasive. I have discussed things on another website with many that proclaim atheism. I have nothing against atheists and have actually enjoyed taking to a few that really want to talk and not bash. It has been a common thing for those that I have talked to, to use that phraseology when questioning the Bible. Again I didn't mean to offend anyone just wanted to know for sure where you stood so to be able to better understand.

As to your question......

The Bible doesn't give us specifics that I know of (perhaps there is someone else on this board that does), to know why we couldn't eat those things and now we can. I just know that it is that we can. Perhaps there was something wrong with that type of food at one time that made it not good for human consumption, but I am guessing here at best. I will leave this to someone else that may have studied it more than I have.

I havn't made a study of it myself because the Bible tells us:

Mat 6:25  Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

First, it appears that contrary to your first protestation, that you don't have a real inkling as to what it means to be Christian. This is further borne out in your following commentary concerning "difficult to abide by all...", which you consider to include the law.  Thirdly, your later posts indicate a slight "change of tone", moving from the "meek questioner" guise to one of marginally pompous and aggressive superiority.

Let's deal with your "question".

If you were a born-again Christian, having accepted Jesus Christ by faith, and making a real attempt to learn what is encompassed by the new covenant, you would know the following:

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
 Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster

The law was given by God to Moses for transmission to the Israelites for a singular purpose...so that in attempting to live by the law, they would come to an understanding that there is no way for humankind to fulfill all the requirements of law, or to achieve perfection and righteousness by that law. It was necessary for people to learn, via the requirements of law, that someone (in this case Jesus Christ) would have to fulfill the requirements of the law for them.

You should also know that:

Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

Which again emphasizes that failure on any point of the law is the same (in God's eyes and requirements) as failing in all the points.

Lastly, your "question" and approach are the same as many atheist's, agnostics and cynics who try to use alleged "contradictions" to point out inconsistency in the Bible, or in Christianity. Not surprisingly, it is in the use of such specious reasoning that the lack of understanding on their part is shown.

And no, I'm sure Jesus didn't dig mussels....nor did He eat ham.

Evangelist

Thank you. I didn't think that I was seeing things, either.
And thank you for a much better amplification of what I was trying to say.

Which might have some validity to it if it weren't also covered in the New Testament.  :)

This thread is intended by thomas2004 to be a mockery of God's Word.

This thread is locked.

Moderator