How can you believe in one part of the bible but not in another?

Anglachel · #1 27th October 2009, 04:14 PM

I have read many articles and seen many protests in which people simply contradict themselves.

A man who had tattood upon his body this passage from Leviticus.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

But Leviticus also states
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28

How can you follow one and then not follow the other? Should you not follow the entire bible or not follow it at all? Else aren't we just making a mockery of ourselves? If we can simply choose what parts of the bible we follow or as is stated more often which parts of the bible "Aren't meant for our time" then what is the point of the bible?

JusticeForAll · #2 28th October 2009, 04:31 AM

The passage directly before that also states, "You shall not round the edge of your head, nor shall you destroy the edge of your beard."

So does this mean you can't cut your hair or shave, either? Of course not.

In the times that passage was written, Pagans would shave the sides of their hair off into a bowl cut and do various things, like tattooing, in order to mourn the dead.

"A man shall not become impurified by his people to defile him. They shall not make bald a baldness in their head nor shall they shave the edge of their beard and in their flesh they shall not cut a cut."
(Lev 21:4-5)

Self-Masochism.

Check out this website - it gives a pretty decent explanation.

Shaving and Sidelocks? The Real Meaning of Leviticus 19:27-28

aandb · #3 28th October 2009, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Anglachel

I have read many articles and seen many protests in which people simply contradict themselves.

A man who had tattood upon his body this passage from Leviticus.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

But Leviticus also states
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28

How can you follow one and then not follow the other? Should you not follow the entire bible or not follow it at all? Else aren't we just making a mockery of ourselves? If we can simply choose what parts of the bible we follow or as is stated more often which parts of the bible "Aren't meant for our time" then what is the point of the bible?

Someone actually got a tattoo about how homosexuality was a sin?

Someone's compensating...

flightofsevens · #4 28th October 2009, 03:42 PM

Haha, wow. As many arguements that I get in with "christians" who are homosexual and swear up and down that it is not a sin (way too many scriptures, old and new testaments saying it is, lol), if I got that as a tat, I'd be a walking deathbed.

alfrodull · #5 30th October 2009, 08:05 AM

The bible doesn't have to be free of error in order to contain general spiritual truths. Sure, this approach leaves a lot up in the air as far as doctrine goes, but most will agree this is better than stoning rape victims and condoning genocide.

dinonum · #6 31st October 2009, 10:34 PM

Originally Posted by aandb

Someone actually got a tattoo about how homosexuality was a sin?

Someone's compensating...

Baha, I was thinking the same thing.

To the OP, I don't think that makes any sense at all! Personally, if they wanted to make a point about it being a sin, you'd think that you would use some other verses, not ones that most Christian's today don't think are applicable to them anyways. Personally, I don't think that particular tattoo/cutting verse is the same kind of tattoo this guy has, but I think you get my point.

Shabby · #7 1st November 2009, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by alfrodull

The bible doesn't have to be free of error in order to contain general spiritual truths. Sure, this approach leaves a lot up in the air as far as doctrine goes, but most will agree this is better than stoning rape victims and condoning genocide.

It would have to be free of error in order to be the Divine Word of God which it claims to be, however.

If the Bible isn't error-free, why should I trust the Gospels?

Sketcher · #8 1st November 2009, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Anglachel

I have read many articles and seen many protests in which people simply contradict themselves.

A man who had tattood upon his body this passage from Leviticus.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22

But Leviticus also states
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28

How can you follow one and then not follow the other? Should you not follow the entire bible or not follow it at all? Else aren't we just making a mockery of ourselves? If we can simply choose what parts of the bible we follow or as is stated more often which parts of the bible "Aren't meant for our time" then what is the point of the bible?

Well, that's not a move I would have made. But to answer your question, Christians do not get to choose which parts of the Bible are not for our time. Scripture defines the limits. You don't set aside an Old Testament command unless the New Testament tells you that you can do so. It's not a matter of what you think or feel is right or what you desire to be right.

alfrodull · #9 2nd November 2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Shabby

It would have to be free of error in order to be the Divine Word of God which it claims to be, however.

Not necessarily. Just because not all of it is of God doesn't mean some of it wasn't of God. And just because people "edited" the text with their own agendas later on doesn't necessarily mean the original text wasn't free of error.

A cursory glance at the gospels will reveal contradictions, though, so it's likely that at least some of them were there to begin with.

Originally Posted by Shabby

If the Bible isn't error-free, why should I trust the Gospels?

You shouldn't. You shouldn't base your convictions solely on an ancient, potentially mistranslated book.

explodingboy · #10 2nd November 2009, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by alfrodull

Not necessarily. Just because not all of it is of God doesn't mean some of it wasn't of God. And just because people "edited" the text with their own agendas later on doesn't necessarily mean the original text wasn't free of error.

A cursory glance at the gospels will reveal contradictions, though, so it's likely that at least some of them were there to begin with.

It's not likely that there were contradictions at the beginning. It's a very well known fact.

4 gospels, were by different authors, for different readers. You have the synoptic gospels, matthew/mark/luke which you can compare side by side, while the only comparable miracle in Jhon is the feeding of the 500.

Mark contains no teachings of Jesus, but does continually compare Jesus to Moses. While Luke does nothing of the sort, as it was written for non Jewish converts.

You shouldn't. You shouldn't base your convictions solely on an ancient, potentially mistranslated book.

Or you just accept that it's an anthology of books, and far better discussed than argued as ultimate proof. Take for instance, Paul. Who references I believe Deuteronomy ( I tend to confuse two of his letters, and I didn't note down the exact passage) That there is no Jew or Greek, Free or Slave, Man or woman, in Christianity..

and yet it is also from Paul's letters that all the women can't do's come from as well.