Why can't Christians say that parts of the Old Testament don't apply??..

[DeistPaladin]

Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;

What do you think DP, was Jesus' statement literal or allegorical?

Does it matter? The OT strictly forbids the consumption of sacrificial blood. Jesus admonishes his followers to partake in a ritual that at least symbolically breaks this rule. Since Jesus felt a sin that is thought of, never mind symbolically acted out in a mock ritual, is still a sin. How do you reconcile this belief?

For me, it's not hard. Communion was a pagan tradition brought into Christianity. Christianity itself is the offspring of Judaism and Paganism. But for the Christian, who must believe that Jesus represents the conclusion of OT laws, has a harder issue to wrestle with.

You stated in another post that you "instinctively" believe in a god, although you have no proof of "its" existence.. You refered to the god as, "it" and having a mind. I already know that you don't believe in the biblical God. I'm interested in knowing what you think god/"it" is. I get the atheist, but I don't get the agnostic deist.

It's my sense of awe of nature, including its rather spectacular beginning, and the evolution of the human mind that give me my sense of God. I say "mysterious mind behind the natural universe" because we don't know much about the enigmatic First Cause. I use the pronoun "It" because I'm trying to avoid anthropomorphizing. And finally, I use the qualifier "agnostic" because I recognize that I could be wrong. I try to draw a sharp line between what I believe and what I know.

If there is no communication between God and humans, and there is no inspired "Word of God" shouldn't you have something more than just instinct to go on? Why don't you just choose to make the leap to one side or the other?

I don't take the label "atheist" out of intellectual honesty. Even though I can't come up with any decisive evidence for a mind at work in the universe (my best and most original was my argument from homosexuality), I still am instinctively convinced. Were I to ever be convinced that this is a delusion, at most I would be a "romantic atheist" (one who wishes God were real).

Theism, by contrast, involves a much bigger leap. I'd have to resolve the following:

1. I'd have to be convinced that God desires a personal relationship with me, and yet the favorite mode of communication, prayer, is one way.
2. I'd have to be egotistical enough to think that God, who created the universe 13.7 billion years ago in a project that includes hundreds of millions of galaxies, wants a personal relationship with me.
3. I'd have to believe that God is so insecure as to require my adoration and validation. This is a God who's powerful enough to create the universe but is plagued with feelings of inadequacy and needs a hug. Kind of touching but unlikely.
4. I'd need to reconcile why God would even consider answering my prayers to find a better job or hit the lottery or whatever, and yet ignores the pleas from those starving in other nations.

Having done all that, I'm just getting started. If I can pick one brand of theism, I then have to:

1. Rationalize picking one brand of theism (Islam, Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc.) over another, considering there's no proof of any for their claims of divine revelation. Prophets only seem to be contacted when they're alone.
2. Figure out why the world was once full of supernatural activity and yet things are so natural today.
3. Resolve all the contradictions and other specific problems in each holy book.

There are probably other mental tasks I'd need to accomplish but that's all I can think of for now...