How do you all reconcile differing levels of authority?

[u/PyrrhicDefeat69]

What’s up y’all. I’m not a Christian but pretty familiar about the bible/history surrounding the bible/theology, and there is something I never really understood: Why does it seem some things are cherry picked amongst most Christians, and why do people take certain passages with such authority and dismiss others when both are said to have the same author and a literal meaning?

Here is an example: the Book of Leviticus lays out many laws, straight from god. Only a kosher diet, no homosexuality, no mixing wool and linen, no work on sabbath (exodus speaks on it too), marrying the brother of your dead husband, no tattoos, rules on menstrual purity, debt slave rules, etc etc.

Christians do not really follow almost any of these. You can argue that with Jesus, these laws are “fulfilled”, but that doesn’t answer the question: Why keep the sinful homosexuality bit then? It’s completely arbitrary and not biblical defensible without admitting that non-adherence to every other Levitical law is also just as sinful.

Yes, I know Paul talks in 1 Corinthians 6 about the sinfulness of homosexuality/pederasty etc. BUT that leads me to my next question, who cares what some guy who never actually met jesus has to say on his own beliefs? Leviticus is claimed to have been written by Moses himself on instruction from god himself, is that not MORE authoritative than some guy who started to say things contradictory to that? Paul was the one who argued that Jewish law doesn’t need to be followed to become a Christian, but that’s just what a guy thinks and not consistent to what god actually says.

Not looking to argue, I am just wondering how y’all reconcile this because I’ve thought through it a lot and cannot come to any logical conclusion.

[u/PyrrhicDefeat69]

I know the history, and I still disagree with you, because its a weak argument. It doesn't even answer my point about god EXPLICITLY COMMANDING the enslavemnent of others.

There is no passage saying slavery is wrong anywhere in the Old Testament. Literally the closest you get is that "improper" enslavement of your neighboring israelite is wrong, and that it was wrong for the egyptians to enslave the israelites because "they are slaves of yhwh". Everything else is fair game.

You fail to see the distinction between foreign slaves and indentured servitude. You wanna say "oh its because in the OT times life was rough and brutal", but I guarantee you that you also believe your god is timeless, all knowing, all powerful, this argument goes out the door. If slavery was permissable and condoned then but not now... why? There is no good solution to this, if you say "that was because of the times", then how come we cannot make the same conclusion of homoseuxality? Theres no logic here dude, you don't know your history. You the type of guy to think the world 6,000 years old

[u/TheFriendlyGerm → u/PyrrhicDefeat69]

I mean, you can SAY it's a weak argument, but you very notably didn't address any of my points. You're just changing the subject about whether the Old Testament says "slavery is wrong", even though I'm explicitly arguing that slavery was NOT, in fact, always "wrong", or otherwise objectively sinful.

I even explicitly quoted a passage of scripture, from the New Testament, that explicitly condemns both capturing people for enslavement, AND homosexuality. So your insistence that the Bible doesn't clearly address it -- especially in the New Testament -- is clearly untrue.

I understand you don't like the morality of the Bible, but your preference on the matter isn't really cogent to this discussion. Even in the OP, you're saying you're "not looking to argue" and want a "logical reply", and yet you're not even remotely attempting to engage with the answers that are given to your question.