deviant art

Deviant Login
Buy ArtBuy T-Shirts & Gear Buy adCast Buy Premium Membership
Shop		  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
June 26, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 94

"I'm a ______, but I disagree with _____ and don't like _____!"

Forums > Community > Philosophy & Religion
:icondragonflae:
~Dragonflae Jun 26, 2012
I'm sure everyone's come upon a person--whether it was they themselves or someone else--who believed in only selective aspects of their chosen religion.

An example would be, "Oh, yeah! I'm a Christian, and I don't think gays should get married, but I still eat lobster!"

Not picking on Christians(this time), I've actually had someone I know say this to me and I'm too lazy to go find other examples.

Now, disregarding the fact that it's generally agreed upon that the New Testament cancels out the Old(Generally agreed. If you disagree, feel free to say so), most of the anti-homosexual writings take place in Leviticus. However, Leviticus also exclusively states that women should not be touched while on their period (Leviticus 15:19) and that shellfish should never be eaten, and are an abomination(Leviticus 11:12).

Why would you or anyone else select only part of the same book to follow? What makes one passage truer than the other?

Does anyone have any experiences with this selective belief system? What are your opinions on it? Do I just need to shut the hell up and get out of the Philosophy and Religion forum? Probably, but I'm not going to.

Discuss.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconroxas1296:
~roxas1296 Jun 27, 2012  Student Digital Artist
New covenant. 'Nuff said.
Reply
:iconultraraccoon:
~UltraRaccoon Jun 27, 2012
Romans 10:4
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Galatians 3
24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

Then there is...
Romans14
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.

Thus its is the convictions of God that will tell a believer what to do and not do. It does look like a selected religion, but one must have the relationship to truly understand. Best verses i could come up with, but if you need more, I got people.
Reply
:iconwithwords:
~WithWords Jun 27, 2012
Why would you or anyone else select only part of the same book to follow? What makes one passage truer than the other?
No, unless a part was abrogated (like you said).

But maybe they do have some reasoning. For example, I believe in most of Christianity to be true but I don't believe in the Trinity. The reason is that most verses that allude to it are either inauthentic or mistranslated. Nor does the Trinity make sense or flow with Old Testament concept of God. So I just don't believe it's a true part of the message of Christianity.

In the case of Christians, they don't all rely on scripture alone. Some also follow tradition and the authority of the church to make rulings.
Reply
:iconcrellian:
~Crellian Jul 3, 2012
LOL!

I believe in most of Christianity to be true but I don't believe in the Trinity.

"If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plan. If you want to make God weep, tell him that which you do not believe"

Funny, people call themselves Christian, and then deny the Orthodox Christian teachings. But then, that's where politics (permitting the establishment of heretical religions) and religion (the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith) diverge. So call yourself a Christian, Mormans do - why shouldn't you?
Reply
:iconwithwords:
~WithWords Jul 3, 2012
Sorry, I just figured which thread I was on. No, I don't oppose that people can have their own opinion that differs from the orthodox view of that religion. As long as they can reason that with evidence, then it should be fine. Heresy should only be fought with reason.
To actually go and persecute everyone you disagree with, I think that's where the church went wrong, and suffered the loss of great thinkers...
Reply
:iconwithwords:
~WithWords Jul 3, 2012
Hey, slow down, I'm not a Christian nor would I ever call myself one.
I'm muslim. I might not have made that clear already but I think the threadstarter knows it :p

I don't think that Unitarian beliefs diverged from the orthodox, rather they existed earlier. It took time for the Trinity to evolve and become established... and even then the councils wavered between the first Council of Nicaea and the third council of Sirmium
Reply
:iconsolum-ipsum:
~Solum-Ipsum Jun 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Essentially, for every historical event in the Bible, there may be a symbolical meaning, but it is irresponsible to go on and – without any understanding of the times the books were written in – try to interpret its laws and doctrines. Some (if not most) were practically included for a humanity of those times with a certain world view, standards and social state.
Reply
:iconsartanis:
~Sartanis Jun 26, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Um, lobster? I thought that was a Jewish custom, but I could be wrong.
Reply
:icondragonflae:
~Dragonflae Jun 27, 2012
It is in the Torah, I believe, but it's also in the Christian bible.
Reply
:iconsartanis:
~Sartanis Jun 27, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not an expert in Jewish tradition), but isn't that because the Old Testament is shared by both religions, while the New Testament is exclusive to Christianity?

Eh, I've never heard my pastor say we couldn't eat shellfish. At least, I hope not, or I'd be condemned several times over :ohnoes:
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
Preview   Add Comment
©2013 deviantART. All rights reserved
About Us | Contact Us | Developers | Careers | Site Tour | Help & FAQ Advertise | Premium Membership Etiquette | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Copyright Policy