OK, so last month I was discussing the argument about the laws in the OT not applying. I pointed out that there are passages in Matthew that contradict this idea. I said then that there could very well be other verses in the NT that contradict Matthew. I should have known there would be. I was reminded of this when reading a blog post on Paul. I was reminded of how he was trying to convert the Gentiles who didn't want to have to get circumcised (which is part of the OT law). Paul, it would seem, came up with the idea that, since Jesus died for a people's sin, people could now sin as much as they want! It's not quite the same idea as this argument of the law not applying. It has the advantage of being more consistent with theology, but the end result really isn't different — either way, there is no law that Christians are required to follow.
One question, though, is why would Christians go with this argument of the law not applying when they have an argument that's ready-made in the Bible? I think the answer to this is that the ready-made argument makes the consequences of not having a law to follow obvious. This leads me to a point I had not bothered making the last time: though OT law has a lot of absurdities, there are a few things that are good — most notably "don't steal" and "don't murder." Christians don't have to follow these laws, either, if they think the laws don't apply. With no law, there is nothing Christians can't do! Now, if you use the argument, "We don't have to obey the law" as opposed to "The law no longer applies," I think these consequences are more obvious as the former is an admittance to being a law breaker.