| > For example, how do you reconcile Christians eating non-kosher meat, since it is also forbidden in the OT? Because they don't want to follow that rule, and they see other Christians not following that rule. Under your interpretation (that Christian attitudes are recieved from the Bible) Christian law would have remained largely static for the past 1600 years since the Bible was compiled, which is clearly not the case. For example, the treatment of adultery and usury have changed unrecognisably. Having either attended or helped perform mass for half of my life, I can tell you for a fact that most Christians have no interest at all in treating the Bible as 'law' and instead use it for inspiration, comfort, or occasionally a crutch when making tough decisions. They recieve their morality and prejudices from themselves and from their peers. If anyone was actually interested in treating the Bible as law then Theology would be a legal field not an academic one. > ... you trawl archaic text to justify anti-Christian feelings that already exist. Nonsense, I haven't said a single anti-christian word... and my pre-existing feelings are against the rationalisation of bigotry being treated as special, or worthy. Prejudice (and we all have plenty) is to be examined and squashed, not protected. > ... how they relate to the New Covenant This is topical. Jesus teaches "love thy neighbour", and the Good Samaritan, lessons that we could all let a little closer to our hearts in times of wall-building, rejection of refugees, and threats of war. |