Understanding the Bible

Let me be the first to admit that I do not have a theological degree. Most religious scholars spend years of intensive study in seminary. My "seminary" consisted of sleeping through an hour of scripture study every morning throughout high school. My only legitimate claim to cannonical understanding is two-fold: first, I lived the monastic life for two years in a barren wasteland with my scriptures as my only reading material. Second, as Paul teaches us, true scritpural interpreation can only be had through the reception of the Holy Ghost. I claim that privilege so long as I live worthy of it.
That being said, I do know one fundamental thing about the Bible, and with my dearth of knowledge and experience in relation to the rest of the world, it distresses me that the majority of Christianity, and certainly most of the media-hogging ones, do not understand this one thing. Allow me to expound by example.
I once heard a man say that practicing a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable in the eyes of God. (Tangent: To my understanding, being gay, as in having homosexual tendencies, is not blasphemy, nor is it sinful. But living and acting on those impulses, and pursuing such a lifestyle is offensive to God.) It's fair to say that most of Christianity condemns the homosexual lifestyle because the New Testament clearly takes the stance that it is offensive to God and sinful. His rationale in justifying homosexuality, though, was that even though the Bible condemned it, it also condemns eating shellfish, and Christianity doesn't poo-poo that idea, now does it? Essentially, if X and Y are both bad according to Z, then if one becomes acceptable, the other must as well. Convincing logic, no? (Actually, not really, but it's still persuasive, I'll grant you that.)
I heard Obama taking the same kind of approach with some recent comments he made about scripture and its place among our mixed society. Now, unlike a lot of people, I don't expect my civic leaders to share my spiritual views or even claim a religion. So I'm still voting for the guy even though he's exemplifying the same tattered logic I've just outlined. It's the same logic that sectarians use to marginalize the Bible and downplay its importance or relevance. And unfortunately, it's also the argument many Christians use to reconcile their own thoughts and desires to the mandates of Holy Canon.
But I digress; on to my main point. It's a fundamental fact contained in the Bible that the prohibitions of the Mosaic Law (eating shellfish, wearing your hair a certain way, etc.) were completely eradicated with the Atonement of Jesus Christ, insofar as the doctrine of Christ did not repeat them. The end of the Mosaic Law was foretold as early as it was given, and Christ proclaimed as much during his ministry. The whole Bible centers around that distinction! I have no idea why more people don't understand this. It's extremely unfortunate and more than a little aggravating.
If we accept that fact (THE big fact of the Bible being Jesus' Atonement, if you ask me), it's perfectly fine for "the Bible" to condemn things like eating shellfish in the Old Testament because the doctrine of Christ does not prohibit it in the New. Whereas, things like murder or adultery are expressly prohibited in both laws, so in that sense, the Mosaic mandate is still in force by virtue of its extension in the doctrine of Christ. As to the homosexuality theory, I put living a homosexual life in the latter category as still being in force.
And for all of you who love calling people "intolerant" when we express our personal religious views, let me remind you that I have no problem with gay people. Many are my friends and they're wonderful individuals. These are my views and mine alone, I don't speak for anybody else or any group. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and I'm willing to change. I don't hate anyone, I don't wish ill upon anyone. Save your outrage for Don Imus.