Originally posted by afsaneh77:
Snake, aren't we supposed to not consider parts of the Old Testament, which have been overruled in the New Testament? I mean, it is taking it out of context when you quote from the Old Testament and do not consider what was changed in the New Testament. Pig was considered unclean to eat for Jews, men must have been circumcised, a woman who had recently given birth must have had some animal to be sacrificed depended on the sex of her baby and many other things that were voided in the New Testament. I believe if you are going to go with the Bible, then you have to consider all the changes that was made to it as well.
One thing that might be interesting to you is that when Islam came, all I mentioned above were rolled back in place. I kind of think it was more the custom of the region, rather than the laws of God, because people didn't buy Christianity in its birthplace very well. I mean yesterday you were told you are not to eat ham and today it is all right?!!
I think everyone already knows that I believe in a secular state, I don't mean that laws should be completely based on religions anyway, they can change according to the needs of the society and no one should be so sacred when they conveniently hide behind Holy books to do their way.
You are correct about the matter of what's known as progressive revelation. However, certain commands are not ruled null and void with the First Advent of Christ. Those with "eternal principles" behind them, for example. The reasoning behind this particular command is an eternal one, not bound by time or culture. In Genesis, I believe the reasoning was because man was made in the image of God. That fact did not change in the New testament.
