Christian Family face possible legal action

Yes it can be. Loads of it can be ignored.

Who gives you the authority to decide what you can just 'ignore', and still be a member of the gang?

'God loves everyone.' says soontobe.

It has a damn funny way of showing it... But then it's so easy to just say it, isn't it? I remember a TW3 skit many years ago in which someone said 'God. Is. Love' - each word accompanied by a slap across the face...

Yes.

What the fuck makes you think I am a "member of the gang?

"

I might have misread your post feetlebaum. If so, I apologise.

phew jingl. I wondered what on earth you were talking about.

God isnt just love feetlebaum. Love is but one aspect.

Oh puh-lease! And the other aspects are -- whatever you want to pull out of the air, I suppose...

What's the problem Jinglb? My use of the word 'gang' for members of a sect or cult? Or the 'one true religion'? I was using the image of a childhood secret society, I suppose, and asking how you could decide to ignore some of the rules and bylaws and not others, without being automatically excluded from the community.

No. I thought you were asking how 'I^ personally could say which bits of the bible could be ignored.

'ang on. Let me go and read it again...

Yeah. That's right. Perhaps you were talking about readers of the bible in general.

Oh, never mind!

Most Christians only believe the New Testament. I think.

Well - yes. That would be the nub of my gist... If you personally mark out the unnecessary passages you might as well be creating a sect, of which to start with, you would be the only member! A there are thousands (I'm told) of 'christianities' that may well be how many of them got started... as with Islam, Judaism and all the others that automatically fraction into seoarate entities, big or small.

I have only come across one christian who largely ignored the whole of the Old Testament. And one who largely ignored the whole of the New Testament. All of the others use all.

feetlebaum. The other aspects are what is in the Bible. I shouldnt imagine you want me to list them all?

All of the others use both, is better than saying All of the others use all.

I prefer to regard the testaments as a development of each other: as God revealing himself gradually to a group of people or as a group of people gradually coming to understand more about God as a child within the family learns more and more about his father as he matures .So goal posts can be moved and more freedom given. Thus revelation/understanding did not end with the closing of the canon .The attitude to homosexuals/gay marriage is an example of this. I firmly believe it is possible to accept this without compromising belief in the Bible. It is a development of our understanding of God's nature. I repeat ,this is my understanding. It is not everybody's.

I remember being told in an RE lesson in 1951 that we should think of the Bible as a library rather than as a book. Some of it is history, some poetry, some biography, some prophesy, some prayer, some letters and some law and regulation. And some other genres. Written at different times, by different people in different languages. To dismiss the whole thing is as unreasonable as to treat every part as though they were all the same.

Neatly put. The books of the Bible neatly bound together in one volume. Not the Bible as a book. Some more important than others.

Greenfinch. Homosexuality for example, is written about in the next to last book of the whole Bible. In the next to last book of the New testament. It very much repeats some the same things said in the Old Testament. There are other places in the New Testament too.
I get what you are trying to say, but in a lot of matters, there are many repeats.

I agree mcem. Some books are hardly read at worship, or at home. And some, lots.

Of course there are repeats soon.These are big issues but the books of the Bible have to be seen in their historical context :in the early days homosexuality did not fit in with the expansion of the nation : "go forth and multiply "etc. and so it was condemned as well as contraception

By the time we get to Paul and the letters of the NT, many scholars believe that he was writing to a community/communities that were possibly practising it "for a laugh ".In other words they were often straight men who wanted to sexually experiment. This Paul felt was not acceptable because it undermined the value of marriage. Maybe he is not condemning it per se. That is something we have to decide for ourselves.

But that does not fit with what various parts of the New Testament says. It is all googlable. I will leave it there.

If you read what some of the posters above have said you will see that the NT is not an homogenous book but a library. The books were written by different authors with different levels of understanding/inspiration. Don't worry, I am not threatening anyone's belief by my interpretation. God is bigger than that and I am always willing to admit I am wrong. But one thing I won't have is a closed mind .I will continue to question and doubt certain things if necessary.

Here is an article by John Shore entitled Taking God at His Word: The Bible and Homosexuality

I agree, greenfinch, and I would add that there are now lots of other books that are as good as or better than some of the bible books so it is perfectly possible to ignore all the books in the bible and still live a good life. The bible, and other religious books, can no longer claim to be the only inspiration for ethical behaviour.