HOME | DD
Rogue-Ranger — Some Old Testament Laws Still Apply
Published: 2018-02-26 07:52:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 1704; Favourites: 35; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Are Old Testament Laws Obsolete?One of the teachers of religious law was standing there listening to the debate. He realized that Jesus had answered well, so he asked, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
Jesus replied, “The most important commandment is this: ‘Listen, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only Lord. And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
(Mark 12:29-31)
When many Christians and non-Christians think of Old Testament laws, they think of not eating shrimp (Leviticus 10:10–11), or not working on Saturday (Exodus 31:15), or not getting a haircut (Leviticus 19:27), so many people dismiss them off hand as irrelevant to modern Christian life. Some people have even called the Old Testament "obsolete."
But, when Jesus says to love God, He's quoting an Old Testament law found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and, when He says to love your neighbor as yourself, that's also an Old Testament law from Leviticus 19:18. Yes, Leviticus, the same book of the Bible that many people consider "outdated" or "historical only." And, since the 10 Commandments are also found in the Old Testament, it's hardly irrelevant. Murder is still wrong.
How Do Christians Measure What Applies Today?
There is some confusion over this, since the Bible says Christ didn't come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17) and yet Christians are not under the law (Galatians 2:16, 3:10, 5:18). So, how can Christians know which laws do follow? After all, the Bible says that, if we love God, we'll follow His commandments (John 14:15, 23). Which ones?
Some Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament laws by making them stronger and more strict. For example, when He spoke on murder, He condemned not just the act of murder but also being so angry that you want to murder. And, when speaking on adultery, He said lusting in a way that one plans to commit adultery was already adultery in one's heart. However, Christ's point was not that we need to take every law and make it stricter but that it's what comes out of us that defiles us rather than what we eat or do. It's the heart's motive that matters. And, if this view were true, then instead of replacing the Old Testament "eye for an eye" with "turn the other cheek," He would have made the punishment stronger. Clearly He was using a specific measure.
Still, some Christians argue that what makes something relevant today is if the law is repeated in the New Testament. For example, murder and adultery are condemned in both the Old and New Testaments but not eating certain foods is specifically stated to be over in the New Testament. The problem with this is not only that some New Testament Laws are not universally applicable, such as forbidding women from braiding their hair or wearing jewelry or being leaders, but also what about those things not addressed in the New Testament? Do we just guess? And what about things that didn't even exist at the time, like cyber stalking? This measure doesn't cover any of that.
Other Christians believe it's the words that are used that make something for all people and for all time, such as if something is "an abomination" or "detestable." However, the Hebrew word translated as abomination and detestable appears throughout the Old Testament laws to describe certain animals, clothing, being a shepherd, how Jewish customs are seen by Egyptians, and on and on, as it literally just means "unclean" and so the same word is also translated that way. If the word is what matters, then Christians would have to stop eating shellfish and bacon, wearing much of their wardrobe, playing football, and a whole host of other everyday activities. Moreover, some Christians claim God "hates" one unclean thing because of the word used but yet never claim God hates any of the others simply because they find that one thing gross and know their feelings aren't authoritative so they project those feelings onto God.
Still other Christians argue for location of verses. For example, they state that some laws in Leviticus are considered ceremonial, some for Israel and some for everyone throughout time, so they say that certain sections of Leviticus and Deuteronomy apply today and others do not. The problem with this is not only that chapter and verse divisions were added much later, but also things most Christians ignore are right next to things most Christians think matter. After all, if location determined moral authority, having sex with a woman too close to her menstrual cycle would be as relevant as child sacrifice since they're in the same chapter. Likewise, buying and selling humans would be as relevant as loving your neighbor as yourself, a woman failing to cover her head would be as relevant as not going to heaven, working on the wrong day would be as relevant as idolatry, cooking a goat in the wrong kind of milk would be as relevant as murder, and on and on.
So, many people just follow whatever is considered moral or immoral by society at present times. While some things, such as murder and rape are generally considered universally immoral, there are parts of the world where even those are excused and then there are some areas where Christian morality is at odds with popular culture. In that case, people often rely on what they've been told is moral and immoral by parents, preachers or fellow Christians to know which laws to follow. Naturally this leads to many moral quandaries and hypocritical use of scripture.
So, How Should We Determine Relevance Today?
So, what is the real measure for modern Christians? Surely there must be a way to know what's moral without having to rely on what others tell you or what you personally like or dislike. That would make morality subjective and potentially arbitrary, so there must be a measure to use, right? As it turns out, there is a measure and this is actually spelled out for us in the Bible itself:
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.
(Romans 12:8)
For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
(Romans 13:9-10)
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
(1 Peter 4:8)
Hatred stirs up conflict, but love covers over all wrongs.
(Proverbs 10:12)
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
(Galatians 5:14)
Does eating crab or wearing pants instead of a dress violate love? No, so it's not immoral. Does rape or online bullying violate love? Yes, so it's immoral. It's really that simple.
That's the measure Christ was using, which is why He compared anger to the command not to murder while making an exception for the law not to work on the Sabbath to say it was okay if someone is helping someone else. You don't need to be some master biblical scholar to understand the heart of the law: love.
How Do We Use Love As A Measure?
But, this raises another issue. What is love? Our society has so many definitions of it and even calls sinful or hurtful actions part of "love." Fortunately the Bible spells that out too:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
(1 Corinthians 13:4-8)
That is what is moral for Christians under the biblical law of love. Hurting or using others obviously violates this, so it violates the law and is immoral.
This means that someone can know nothing of the commandments in either the New or Old Testaments and still know morality, because God made it manifest to all of us (Romans 1:20) and wrote it on our hearts:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
(Romans 2:14-16)
If God is love and God's Spirit lives inside us, we do God's will. We literally could not know a single law from scripture and yet still follow them because we act out of love when we do God's will. As John 14:15 says, if we love Him, we'll keep his commandments. It always goes back to what Christ calls the two equally greatest commandments, to love God and others as ourself.
Love as a motive for action always comes first. If we don't act out of love, what we do becomes futile.
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:1-12)
God loves us and is the source of godly love, so His Spirit in us helps us act in ways that are loving toward Him, toward others, and toward ourselves. Can we still fail to listen? Of course. But fortunately we have the Bible, both Testaments, to remind us.
Conclusion
So, the next time someone dismisses all the Old Testament laws as irrelevant, remind them that the location of the laws doesn't matter. The highest law is love and that's what Christians should measure morality against. Since God is the source of love (1 John 4:7), it is written on our hearts and embedded on our conscience. And, just because the Bible doesn't mention it, you can still use this biblical measure on modern ideas, such as anything done online.
Without the Old Testament, we wouldn't have a New Testament, as the story of sin and redemption was woven into it from the beginning. In this way, even a collection of books written thousands of years ago is just as relevant today and always, so long as we measure every word with Love.
Also on this topic:
Christianity Is About Love (stamp)
Being Christian Is About A Relationship (stamp)
Love God's Way (stamp)
Any Sin Can Be Overcome With Love (stamp)
A Non-Hypocritical Perspective (stamp)
God is Love (art)
Attributes of Love (art)
A Christian Guide To Loving Everyone (essay)
Do To Others As You Would Have God Do To You (essay)
Loving God's Way (essay)
Related content
Comments: 40
Thank you for this! I had been doing my own article/journal and had forgotten about this side of what it means to be under the New Covenant; I have linked this one to the one I've done at the bottom
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for sharing this! I'm sorry that it's taken me so long to get to your comment, but I've had a lot going on. Also, you mention in your article that you don't agree with everything I write here but weren't specific what. I do state a few different theories people have in here and point out difficulties with them, but other than that, if you have specific suggestions to improve this please let me know. I'm always looking for constructive feedback.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What those people don't understand is that those laws talking about haircuts and tattoos were talking about customs often used in pagan religions back in the day. It used to be a custom for a woman to shave her head as a form of idol worshipping. It mentions that in the New Testament too where it talks about the head covering. Tattoos were also a form of idol worship and even today it can be considered a form of perversion. Body piercings were also considered a form of idol worship from what they ate to their clothes. In an area where you are surrounded by pagan worship and perversion, yes you do need to separate yourselves from their form of worship. They did the same in the Salvic Nations and even today, the Christians in Muslim countries, third world countries and Socialist countries live differently, separating themselves from the practices of their culture that try to destroy Christianity. Just like how the Bible talks about a woman covering her head to separate herself from the perverse idol worshipping in that country at the time, the Christian women in Islamic countries take off the head covering to separate themselves from the perverse and idol worshipping in that country. It's basically the same thing, only in a different form. In today's culture, covering your head as a woman would be a form of idol worship instead of the other way around, because the form of idol worship we practice today are different from the times of 1-10,000 BC.
Unfortunately, when people read the bible and see those bible verses, they lack understanding the context and meaning behind those practices. The reason that we no longer live under the law is because Jesus had died on the cross and made the ultimate sacrifice. This made it possible for gentiles to change and thus the gentiles could change their form of worship. It was after Jesus's death that the practices of European pagan worship began dying. All those perverse and pagan practices began dying and no longer practiced. Even the day of worship and holidays were changed. By the time the Reformation took place, nobody remembered the old pagan practices anymore. Nobody even knows that Sunday used to be the day of worshipping the Sun god in Roman pagan worship. All of the pagan festivals were replaced with Christian holidays. Instead, it's the old practices like cutting the hair, covering the heads and eating certain foods that have been used as form of idol worship. That's why we no longer are under those laws. Believe it or not, Conservatism is the new custom Christian laws that separate us from the perverse and idol worship. I believe that the Early Christians and Hebrews of the Bible both New and Old Testament were like the Conservatives of today.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's very interesting and informative, thank you! I had actually wondered about women shaving their heads before, as it seems a strange thing to single out as it's so uncommon today, but then obviously times were different when Paul was writing his letters to the early churches and, as you say, what was part of pegan worship back then is different today. The only part I'm unclear on is how conservatism fits in. Generally I've heard of conservative in the context of politics, like liberal democrats and conservative republicans. Maybe you can explain it a bit?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Conservatives of today stand for Biblical culture as a way of protecting society. It’s the only party that has defended Biblical grounds and under Biblical culture, they believe in the rights and liberties for mankind, because it was given to them by their Creator. Liberalism is against Christianity and often finds it offensive, thus why they would rather defend Islamic culture that beat women and kill Christians on a regular basis. For a Christian, Conservatism is their ally, because it is the only party that believes Christian culture should be protected by all means and without it, we have no society. This is what the Early Church tried to teach the Romans of the day. Head coverings for women and men not shaving their beards would’ve been what we would consider a Conservative thing of today, a group of people that believe in Christian Culture. Once the world accepted Christian Culture and the Roman Catholic Church became powerful, all the pagan practices were taken away and therefore the people no longer saw shaving as a bad thing. In fact, considering that we hardly can find recordings of it, they probably burned any evidence of doing that kind of stuff. Head coverings then became used to cover the head from the sun and pull the women’s hair back. It was the same with circumcision. It was considered a practice to separate themselves from pagan culture. Keep in mind that the pagan practices included children sacrifices. That is where Wickerman, the original one, got its horror story from. It’s as bad as it seems. Historians won’t tell you that in the pagan world, beastiality and a group of men young and old surrounding a household to rape a male traveler was a common thing. In fact, I think Orthadox Jews are taught that the straw that broke the camel’s back to the decision to destroying the world through Noah’s flood was marriages of people and animals. You think that’s bad. The Bible says that at the end days, the world will be like the days of Noah.... yep. Hollywood is already showing hints of possibly going that direction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Conservative Christianity, also known as fundamentalism and evangelicalism, is a scourge upon the world with its numerous false prophets, and ugly messages. Pastors scamming their congregations for more money to buy private jets. Reprehensible! Claiming that God approves of Trump being president. Disgusting!
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
The way I see it, the Old Testament is still canon, meaning it's still a relevant part of the Bible as a whole. So it's in the Bible, it's there for good reason.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The purpose of the law was not handed for us to keep it, it is simply to show you cannot save yourself, that was its main purpose. It was also to remind everyone of their place, and remind them who is God and what He is like.
It's difficult to explain to everyone here because you'd have to understand the Jewish mindset to understand what is the Law and how to keep the commandments. But of course you cannot understand such a mindset with selfish intentions to gain something.
The Law is a school master as Paul put it; and was a fore-shadow of things to come. It's not meant to lead you to salvation, but again to show you that you cannot obtain slavtaion based on YOUR OWN EFFORTS.
Yeshua said simply that if we love Him we have kept the commandments- it leads to simply dying to yourself and allowing Christ Yeshua (who fulfilled the law) to live inside of you. Keeping the Law is a BY PRODUCT of loving Yeshua. In Galatians 5 it clearly states that you cannot walk in Christ (grace) and under Law (being legalistic per se) at the same time. It just doesn't compute. If you subject yourself to the Law, Christ is of none effect for you- it's like saying His sacrifice was in vain to you.
In the end it all boils down to heart attitude - as the vanilla way to say it - if your heart attitude is geared towards ahavah (God's kind of love) given through Yeshua, then you have fulfilled the law. But if your heart attitude is geared towards selfishness and pride then you are subject to the Law. The latter can simply be translated as leaning unto your own wisdom and knowledge when it comes to solving things or even attempting to interpret Scripture.
I will give a fair warning to everyone here: To understand what the Law is meant for is not by taking it intellectually like this is a god-forsaken curriculum at a university; it has to be understood by the heart by meditating on His Word. You have to forsake your own way of thinking and adopt the Mind of Christ. That simple.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"The problem with this is not only that some New Testament Laws are not universally applicable, such as forbidding women from braiding their hair or wearing jewelry or being leaders, but also what about those things not addessed in the New Testament?"
I've actually wondered about these for a long time. Maybe they do apply, but most people conveniently declare them invalid?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not uncommon for people to pick and choose what parts to follow based on their own personal measure, rather than what the Bible says is the measure, so that's certainly possible. I personally don't believe they all still apply, like wearing mixed fibers, planting two types of crops, etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right, but those two particular things are from O.T. Jewish law, whereas the instruction about women not being leaders in the church is directed at the N.T. church.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's certainly possible women not teaching or braiding hair or speaking is for modern churches, as they appear in the New Testament. But it's also possible it applies to the churches Paul was addressing in his letters and not all churches for all time. That I don't know for sure, but I do believe that it's not where the laws are written that matters, as we're no longer under the law. With the Holy Spirit, we will know what God wants for us. For some it may be marriage, for others being single. For some, It may be church leadership, for others being silent. God's law is based on love and love realizes not everyone has the same purpose in life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We're no longer under *O.T. law*, not all law. Jesus said whoever doesn't keep his commandments and teaches others likewise is in big trouble. (my paraphrase 
You are combining issues of obvious spiritual discernment, such as marriage, and the matter of obedience, law, etc. I don't think those can be properly lumped together. There are some clear, definite directions/commands in the N.T. meant for all Christians. You may be correct that some also only specifically applied to the local churches they were written to.
I think we are in agreement, at least mostly, but we are talking in circles a bit. lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, I guess I just don't know how to properly articulate that I believe the Holy Spirit helps us discern what God wants for us on each issue personally rather than believing the OT doesn't apply to us but the NT does, when both OT and NT can be relevant in our lives. Either way, thanks for your patience!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I guess what I'm trying to say is that all issues shouldn't be lumped together as discernment issues. Obviously we should not murder, that's not up to personal discernment. So I'm wondering where that line is between what is an outright command (do not murder) and areas of discernment.
Subtopic: I think people can be very nonchalant, self-serving, or even arrogant about decreeing what is "relevant" to themselves or not, when the entire Bible was given "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Tim. 3:16 I don't like the idea that people (whose hearts are desperately wicked) get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they take seriously when convenient. I know not all people approach it that way, and I bet most people who do wouldn't even realize it. But that scares me even more.
Again, the Bible does provide many areas of spiritual discernment, I just want to know where the line is. (And *not* so I can get as close to that line as possible!)
Hey, it's fun to have discussions like this. No worries. Type away
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm glad you're easygoing about this. Sometimes people become upset with me if I'm not clear. And I think I can understand your concerns, so I'll try to take time to better explain. Please let me know if it makes sense. And, of course, I don't know everything, so always pray and ask for guidance while you study the Bible yourself. I'm just explaining what I believe and why.
I agree that we shouldn't just rely on our own human discernment, but I include everything in that. I believe the Holy Spirit helps us not only discern personal matters but all matters, so there isn't a separate category for what's clear in the Bible and what's unclear. The Spirit is there to help us discern all things, not just some.
For example, murder is wrong, but humans can come up with all kinds of excuses, like they deserved it or they had less value than other people or it was out of anger, etc. As you pointed out, people have come up with ways to rationalize all kinds of things that should be obviously wrong.
As Jesus said in Mark 7:20-23:
“What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
It's what's inside us that matters. I've known many atheists who can quote many Bible verses and even the historical context, but they don't believe it even though Romans 1 says it was made plain to everyone, because they see it as something external and so it isn't written on their hearts. What comes out of us defines us, so we need God's Word in us through His Spirit to guide us.
So, the problem as I see it isn't that some things are up for personal choice, because we'll choose wrong. I believe that, whether it's clearly spelled out or not, we won't understand it without God. As we see in 1 Corinthians 2:14:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Hebrews 10:16–17 quotes a promise God made in Jeremiah 31 to write His law on our hearts and minds. We see this also in John 14:26:
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Note both being taught and reminded, again attesting to the interconnection of scripture, be it written in the Bible or on our hearts. This concept is also in the OT in Psalm 119:11 and just as relevant as it is in the NT:
I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
So, the more we listen to God and His Spirit within us, the more we are able to know and do His will and see that line we shouldn't cross.
"So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." (1 John 4:16)
"But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:11)
"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?" (1 Corinthians 6:19)
If God lives in us, His Word (Christ is also called the Word by John) is in us. God is love, so His love is in us.
I believe God loves us and wants to help us be loving toward Him, toward each other, and toward ourselves. God is the source of that love, so we can't really know the right thing to do without His Spirit. In fact, we literally can't even believe the Bible is anything but "a bunch of fairytales" (I've actually heard it called that by people) without Him. We need Him to guide us in His Word, of which He's an expert.
If you think about some of Jesus's commands, like love your enemies, keep forgiving those who sin against you, take up your cross, be ready to die for Him, etc, it all would be impossible if not for God, through Whom all things are possible. He helps us from inside out to do the seemingly impossible.
So, from my perspective, whether it's knowing "you shall not commit adultery" is always relevant or if you personally should pursue church leadership or not, the knowledge comes from one source, not more than one. There is not "the Bible says this" and "the Holy Spirit will help you figure that spiritual issue out", but the Holy Spirit speaks God's Word found in the Bible. It's all interconnected. The only real difference is that God will apply His Word differently in our lives, like calling some of us to use this spiritual gift or that, to marry or not, etc, but it's still coming from the same source for all of us: God. Does that make sense?
So, I don't know if no woman ever can be a leader because I'm not a woman or planning to be a leader, but I do know how God has called me to live my life according to His Word. It's not always easy or what I sometimes want, but even Paul wrote about that internal struggle between the flesh and the Spirit in him. We won't be perfect in this life, but that doesn't mean we have to stumble around in the dark guessing how to apply His Word to our lives. Jesus spent so much time not telling us how to tell others how to follow His Word, but to follow it ourselves through love so we can show others by our light. It's actually more effective in my experience to start with getting things sorted in our own lives first and then our light will be bright and not dim.
Though, keep in mind that this stamp was mostly made for those who feel the OT is some separate thing to ignore or hold lower than the NT and I wanted to show how Jesus and Paul quoted from the OT and how the whole Bible connects and God can guide us through it all using the same love that allows us to be known as children of God. There is one God. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, truth and love are all from one source, so everything, whether personal or universal law, starts and ends there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree. Let's assume the Holy Spirit's presence and guidance, okay? I'm not arguing that at all.
I'm trying to identify the line between personal and universal law. I certainly don't expect any clarity outside of the Holy Spirit's guidance. And because the Trinity and the Bible are interconnected (Jesus is the Word made flesh), we can be sure they will also never contradict each other.
The Bible teaches absolute truth (ergo, the Holy Spirit does as well), so the idea that anything in the Bible can mean one thing to one person, but something completely different to someone else is wrong. There may be different applications, but only one interpretation.
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21
That's why there *must* be, by definition, some things that are universal and some things that are personal. And it must be important to know the difference. If it wasn't possible to get anything wrong, why is so much of the NT Paul or Jesus (especially in Revelation) warning about doctrinal, theological, and moral error?
Jesus says, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15) He doesn't say, If you love me, use spiritual discernment and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to realize you should keep my commands and then keep them. He just says to keep them. And *then* he says He will send the Comforter. So Jesus actually puts obedience to His commands *ahead* of the Holy Spirit right here.
Some things we should just *do* and of course we wouldn't and couldn't be motivated to obey or even love without a relationship with the Trinity and grace. I'm not questioning the source of motivation or guidance. I'm questioning the idea that every decision be treated like a personal issue, rather than some being treated as the universal issues that they are. Without some unmoving, universal standard (which is Christ), there can be no such thing as biblical morality.
Specifically, I don't want to erroneously treat some laws as personal that are meant to be universal. And for all you know, my search and desire to clarify this distinction is motivated and guided by the Holy Spirit since I claim to be a Christian.
"So, I don't know if no woman ever can be a leader because I'm not a woman or planning to be a leader..." This is so similar to rhetoric out there that says, "You can't understand me because I'm ___ (insert gender, "race", sexual orientation, etc). My argument is that if this is a universal issue, then you absolutely should know whether being a woman pastor is right or wrong for all women. I grew up being taught that this was a universal issue, but I don't want to continue believing that without knowing it to be true. And if it *is* universal, it's my responsibility as a member of the body of Christ to approach other members about sin in their lives when appropriate. (Gal. 6:1-2, James 5:19-20) It's absolutely fundamental that Christians know what the Trinity, through the Bible, says is right, wrong, or up for interpretation. It is the world that has no basis for a moral code, not us.
I'm really glad that you value the OT. I agree that many Christians think it has nothing to say to us, and that view is obviously erroneous as well. If they would read the NT, they'd know that, because as you say, Jesus and the NT authors quote from the OT all the time.
And maybe that's part of what freaks me out. So many Christians don't even read the Bible, but then think they are qualified to spiritually discern (or maybe even to have a personal preference) on issues that should be universal (like whether or not homosexuality and abortion are wrong) when they don't even know the heart of the one they profess to believe in. (1 Cor. 1:1-3, Heb. 5:12-14) Regularly reading the Bible (and a clear conscience! otherwise we don't have a clear channel of communication, Ps. 66:18) is just as important to spiritual discernment as is the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
---
As far as discussing truth, I'm trying to not give my opinion at all anymore. Opinions suck. I'm trying to only believe the Bible (thus the importance of knowing what's universal vs. personal) and to say "this is what the Bible says," rather than "this is what I believe." Because what I or anyone else believes doesn't make anything true or important. And for Christians, it actually weakens the Gospel message to soften it with "that's just what I believe," when it can have so much more authority because "this is what God says." Why have we shied away from that?
Last week my pastor taught on having the fear of God, rather than the fear of man. And I've been realizing over the past few weeks that I've taken a really weak stance on some issues, mainly by not saying anything at all, because I was afraid of confrontation or backlash. That's where I'm coming from. I'm willing to take a stand again with unbelievers, even if it costs me.
Thanks for being willing to have this back-and-forth with me and for valuing and using Scripture to back up what you say. God bless!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's interesting that you've been faced with the same thing as me recently. I suppose that's part of why God brought us together. See, at school I thought for sure I understood an assignment, but someone else understood it to be very different. At work, it was a policy I felt certain was different than a coworker's unwavering certainty of it. And, at church, what I thought was so clear in the Bible was seen very differently by some others. And, in each of these recent cases, I didn't even disagree because I could sense they'd become angry and frankly I'm tired of all the conflict. So, you're not the only one who has realized they were taking a weak stance or being silent to avoid a backlash.
I go to a nondenominational church, so I'm not sure if specific denominations like Baptist or Presbyterian or Lutheran or Calvinist or Pentecostal, etc, face the same thing, but there's been a lot of disagreement and tension in the past year about things ranging from helping the homeless to politics to the church's position on this issue or that.
I see it so often now, this idea that the purpose of communication isn't to understand each other and others, but to demand agreement because so many people seem so certain they know the absolute truth and anyone who sees things differently by default has to be wrong and must conform. It isn't just "SJWs". That's partially why I'm hesitant about saying "this isn't my opinion, this is what God says" when I've so often heard that said by two people disagreeing over what they claim God really meant and it too often ends with one or both claiming the other isn't a real Christian or is deceived by Satan. I've been told the same thing if I've simply suggested maybe one principal doesn't have to be applied universally. For example, I lost a friend because I said excommunication doesn't apply to disowning one's children for disagreeing with them on a religious doctrine. And that's not even getting into how many accuse everyone not of their specific denomination of not being a "real Christian."
I didn't mean to imply something specific in the Bible means two completely different things to two different people, but that we don't know how everything applies for everyone all the time. I've stated the measure I believe the Bible says to use, which is love, and why, but even then I'll mess up. I'm not omniscient, so I have gaps that mean I will be wrong. I'm not perfect, so I will misread the Bible or not always listen to the Holy Spirit or simply believe interpretations I've grown up hearing. I am human, so I have biases that I am not always conscious of. These aren't excuses, but admissions. So, no matter how certain I am, I am going to be wrong sometimes and I must be willing to be corrected, whether God chooses to tell me directly or through others.
There are many Christians who believe that they don't interpret scripture as they read it or that, if they do, they don't bring any human bias, so anyone who sees scripture differently has to be the one misreading the Bible or inserting bias, when really everyone who is human does that sometimes (which is still a sin). This belief of self exegesis and other eisegesis has led to so many unnecessary arguments between Christians simply because of a separate view of self. It's the same mindset that some non-Christians use to say "tolerance" requires agreement or even active support.
I don't think every Christian has shied away from saying "this is what God says." Many know that phrase has authority. Yet, while statating it's what we believe may not be as authoritative as stating it's what God says and any objection is arguing against God instead of the actual person, I believe it's more honest, as often we simply state what we believe God said or meant, which is a belief too.
Keep in mind that the very same paragraph in 1 Timothy 2 that forbids women from teaching or having authority also says Eve was deceived and so women will be saved through childbearing, which comes off as theologically unsound and an error on Paul's part, especially considering how it's been used throughout history. When we don't balance scripture against scripture, we end up with things like the generations of some Christians forcing women to breed and removing basic equal rights because of a literal reading of 1 Timothy 2. To this day many Christians look down on women who choose not to have children and pity those who can't.
So, while I believe there are absolute truths on every issue, you'll notice the context of Jesus stating that we'll follow His commandments if we love Him: It's things like love God and then your neighbor as yourself as the greatest commandments that fulfill the rest. He's making it simple for us for the same reason He repeats things, which is because He knows we fail so easily. So, I believe we're given a measure and then examples, like how even desiring to commit adultery or murder is a sin, as both violate a love for God and others.
Remember that John wrote that it's not that we loved God but that He loved us and so Christ died. We are the ones who have made mistakes and will continue to do so, but He's faithful to forgive us if we repent. He knows we'll sometimes love the things of the world more than Him or just be distracted or forgetful, but did He abandon David, who committed adultery and murder? No, so he loves us despite being imperfect and works to convict us of sin and lead us to repentance.
Also, I don't believe Jesus stating He'll send the Holy Spirit after saying to follow His commandments means we can somehow follow those commandments without the Holy Spirit or just know and do it prior to having God in us. He's not placing one ahead of the other. The Holy Spirit is integral to the whole process and the order isn't as linear as it may initially appear. As you quoted from 1 Peter, the Holy Spirit spoke to people in Old Testament times too and that's where we get scripture. So, the Holy Spirit was guiding people long before Jesus promised to send it to those people. It's not some New Testament only thing, just like Jesus was present before the creation according to scripture. The Holy Spirit came before it was written of, so He can't be placing obedience before what gives us the ability to be obedient.
God has always been guiding people throughout history. We don't just know because we see words on a page. We know because He opens our eyes to the truth. And, as you noted, we were warned of doctrinal deviations, again attesting to us straying. But, like the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal son, God is faithful and patient. So, while it may sound like simply wanting to know everything that's universal isn't desiring perfection, knowing everything is omniscience and requires perfection. So, I believe we need God and to see our limitaions in understanding. We should do our best, as both of us are trying by praying and studying the Bible, but sometimes it's okay to say "I don't know."
As for not knowing what applies to all women, I too think it's insulting to dismiss someone by saying you don't get them because you're not (insert label). What I meant is that I don't expect myself to know everything for everyone. It's not that I can't understand women, but there's an infinite amount of things to know and I learn at a finite rate, so most likely God will tell me what's most relevant to me.
There are also things God just doesn't tell me, even things I really want to know, like why I've buried a cat at the same time every year for five years straight or why I have chronic health problems. But I have to trust that He'll tell me what I need to know when I need to know it. The same is true for my friend who really wants to find a husband and have kids one day, but feels it's impossible because she's asexual and an asexual man with a personality that fits hers seems so statistically rare to find. So, she prays to know God's will in that area and hasn't revived an answer yet if she will marry one day or not (we both agreed being a single mom would most likely not be God's ideal, so she'd marry before adopting). And, even though it's more probable a woman seeking leadership would know God's plan in that area, those women who feel drawn to leadership may face the same issue, where God hasn't revealed His plan for them yet and they wouldn't know anymore than me in that area.
So, I understand your desire to be led into all truth (what the Bible says the Spirit does), but don't place such an unrealistic burden on yourself that you can't share God's Word until you know everything that's universal without any room for doubt. I see Christianity not really as a religion, but as a relationship first with our Creator, then with each other. So, really, our first job in evangelism is introducing people to Christ, not telling them how to live. That comes after and may not be clear due to our human limitations, but just pray, study and try your best to be faithful to God's Word. Not knowing everything for sure isn't a sin. It's why we have faith. Be open to learn and be corrected. It's hard sometimes, but ultimately truth is more valuable than pride and we're called to be humble, admitting fully our failings.
Thank you as well, especially for your patience. I know this doesn't necessarily answer all your questions, but I don't have all the answers. I'm just hoping it makes sense what I believe and why. Also, sometimes not having that absolute certainty based around the idea that others must realize you're right can actually make correcting people easier, as there's less pressure. You state what you believe and why, but how they react is up to them. You've done your part. This is a lesson for us both. We shouldn't fear the reactions of others. We can't control how they'll react, only how we deal with their reactions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice explanation.
So what do you think about the ever discussed "a man mustn't lay with another man" law? I can's see any love-violation in this, so I don't see a Problem in it (even though I'm a Christian and every other Christian around me thinks it's not okay). Would love to hear your opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
If you're asking what I personally believe, like you I believe that law does not fall under the love measure, so it's like verses that say you'll face exile if you have sex during your wife's period or that certain animals are "abominations".
As 1 Corinthians 13 says, someone could have faith to move mountains or give all their possessions to the poor, but it becomes meaningless if it's not motivated by love. Jesus teaches this too in the gospels, that it's what comes out of our heart's, our motives, that define or defile us. So, just as many heterosexual couples form relationships based on physical lust, so do many homosexual couples. Neither of those two facts eliminate the possibility that two people of any gender can love each other instead of living by lust.
Again, that's my personal belief based on a broad picture of how the Bible fits together rather than singling out certain verses. Obviously I could be wrong and I'm not God and of course, as you know, other Christians believe differently. For example, Starrceline's stamp that she linked to has a lot of explanations for why various Christians believe the Leviticus passage is still applicable today, but I personally believe they all overcomplicate the issue to try to make something universal that really isn't in and of itself.
One explanation listed for why it's relevant today is how the passages should be separated into groups by verse location. It lists complex explanations of why one part is for all time and one part for ancient Jews, while trying to gloss over that the separation they use makes having sex during a woman's period have the same absolute moral value as homosexual sex. It's actually right there in the explanation. Others study word usage and claim the fact most Christians believe something somehow proves it must be true. It's interesting, but intentionally confuses the issue so people just accept the premise.
However, the Bible literally says love fulfils the law, the highest laws are based on love and anything not done out of love, even seemingly good things, is totally meaningless. It even defines the word it uses for love (agape). In fact, it says God is love and lives in us as a Spirit that makes us love others and know what's right and wrong as defined by God. It's really not complicated.
The only issue is if what humans define as love is what God defines as love. For example, lusting after someone's body, regardless of gender, is not love based, as it sees the person as a thing. Loving someone from the inside out and wanting the best for them is love based, as it loves the person. So, is it possible for people of the same sex to love each other? Of course. Is sex for every relationship? No, of course not. But, is what makes it right or wrong for that situation because of genders only? I don't believe so.
In the end, Christians aren't called to be sin police. The Holy Spirit (God in us) convicts us of right and wrong and allows us to empathise with others so we avoid what is hurtful and therefore unloving and wrong. Only God can tell us what's right in our situation by showing us love as God defines it. The law by itself can't do that. Only God can.
Also, since this stamp is more about addressing those who say the Old Testament is irrelevant, this stamp addresses your question in greater detail and includes more verse references:
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Now that's an answer I can's support, thank you for your time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome! Though, as always, ask God for clarity and study scripture for yourself. I'm only human.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course I will, thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome again and I feel I'd be negligent if I didn't also mention to watch out for believing only what you already agree with. I've falling into that trap before.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't mean to be rude but it doesn't matter what us as human's opinion on it is, what matters is what the Bible says.
God condemns any type of homosexuality, including with any other sexual immorality.
bestiality and incest are also condemned in Leviticus and still count as sexual immorality, which are still sins today.
Love IS important but God is also just, and sexually immoral sins are still condemned, even homosexual romantic/sexual relationships because God has only created woman for man for that kind of intimacy.
the explanations of homosexuality being a sin in the stamp I created IS still applicable for Christians today, it's not that complicated when we do our research to understand what God wants for us and what to do better.
the point of researching the Bible is to make sure we understand God's Word, to understand His love, and so we can follow Him righteously, which includes following His laws and doing our best to fight against and avoid sin.
of course I'm not saying gays cannot be saved, everyone has the ability to accept the free gift of salvation, but they do need to repent as does everyone else does for their own sins, and fight against temptation too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Don't worry, I didn't find it rude. I just didn't want to say my belief is following the Bible and any other person's beliefs are not, which is what many people do, so I chose to use "my personal belief" as a disclaimer. It's my way of acknowledging that, like everyone else, I have a limited picture of the infinite whole and so could be wrong. But, yes, I believe it's what the Bible says that matters most. We just disagree on some ways of interpreting scripture (though I'd say in general most things about the Bible we agree on).
To be specific with regards to your stamp, the first section from the Carm website says why we must accept chapter 18 as universally applicable today and it all seems to make sense except that directly in the middle of that section is not having sex with your wife during her "monthly uncleanness." It's listed in the stamp specifically and then again within the verse numbers in Leviticus 20 listed as moral, but few notice it unless they don't already believe the premise of the argument.
So, why doesn't anyone say that a man having sex with his wife at the wrong time of the month is sexual immorality just as universally immoral as a man with a man or as sacrificing your child to Moloch? It's right there between various women men can't have sex with. A lot of newly married couples have sex at least once a week, meaning at some point it will fall on a week where it's like having sex with someone of the same sex or committing adultery. Shouldn't we warn newly married couples because of the Bible's clear stance against this form of sexual immorality? Quite literally, we can't use the same logic without making Leviticus say sex during a woman's period is also sexual immorality unless we say something like "but we know that's the exception and homosexuality is not, regardless of verse placement or what the Bible says." So, then the entire argument falls apart, which is why I believe it's that people study scripture with some bias without realizing it. Since I'm human too, I count myself too. Hence using "personal belief."
Then, the explanation from bible.org that follows argues that, if you throw out same-sex prohibitions, you must throw out bestiality and incest, since it's between the two, which I frankly find hypocritical when it also argues we can throw out the menstruation sex prohibition but doesn't say why when it's in the exact same passage, between incest and bestiality too. Why can we throw that out without throwing out incest and bestiality? That was exactly the same argument for the exact same set of verses. In my opinion, it's again coming to scripture trying to make up why it agrees with what someone already believes. We don't have to agree, but perhaps you can understand why I'm skeptical about such interpretations being bias free.
Aside from creation.com arguing that an interpretation must be true because enough time and people agreeing makes it true and one part of gotquestions.org saying the existence of homosexuality is a symptom of society's downfall, there's a lot I feel does make the point very well, like Focus on the Family or how gotquestions.org shows how we're all equal sinners equally in need of redemption. To me, that along with positive portrayals or heterosexual marriage are far more convincing than some of the arguments I mentioned. I'm not saying they shouldn't be included, but why I'm not as convinced by some of them.
When you say "Love IS important but..." I feel the "but" could be an "and" instead, as love isn't just "important" but God is love and love fulfills the law, love is defined in scripture and we are commanded to love specifically that way before all else. We can't even follow God's commandments until we love Him and we love because He first loved us because of course love is from God so He gives it to us when He draws us to Christ. So, when we come to Christ, God will place His Spirit in us and we'll know how to do His will, not just intellectually but through love.
That means coming to Christ so the Spirit can convict us and lead us to repentance must always come first. A relationship with God and His Word is personal, written on our inner hearts. I believe in a relationship over a religion. An illiterate person can know God's Word too because of this. So, arguing specific sins could never be as effective at convincing people as introducing them to Christ and letting God convict them through the Holy Spirit.
I believe we should all show our love for one another and express any concerns we have, even if that's a belief that homosexuality is wrong. If that's what you believe, express it. No one should ever feel they can't speak out just because not everyone agrees. In fact, it's probably better to error on the side of avoiding sex, as Paul and Christ both praised celibacy as an option. So, if someone believes something is immoral, speak up. But, when we do that, maybe we can avoid saying that anyone who disagrees with us isn't following the Bible or that one knows God's will for everyone in every circumstance.
I agree, we all need to repent. I just also believe only the Holy Spirit can tell us of what, as no one truly understands God's will until they know God and God is the one calling us to Him. For some, that may mean to repent of braiding their hair or wearing jewelry, as the Bible commands against. For others, those things may not stem from a wrong heart attitude (the source of sin) and so would not be sinful and instead maybe they need to repent of lust, perhaps even homosexual lust. It depends on the person.
But, again, maybe I'm wrong about something, even a lot. God's had to set me right quite a few times, so I wouldn't be the least bit surprised it'll happen again.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply and I hope disagreeing on a couple points isn't a problem. As I said, we agree on most things and even best friends don't see eye to eye all the time. Also, if I have said anything that you feel is wrong or offensive, please let me know so that I can learn from my mistakes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok good, I rarely reply to people on other people's deviations/pages since they would think I'm "looking for trouble" when I get into these kind of conversations/debates/arguments.
while people have different experiences with their beliefs, we must all follow what the Bible says. even if it's correcting others if they stray away from what the Bible clearly teaches. we ARE limited, but there are definitely things that aren't as complicated as people make them out to be, such as homosexuality as a whole being a sin. God makes it clear and there's no way around to justifying any part of it.
while the temptation itself is not sinning, such as having same-sex attractions, acting upon those temptations by seeking to satisfy those feelings and getting into a homosexual relationship is.
I'm willing to accept period sex as a sexual immorality that still applies today. and I'm willing to warn others about it too. not only for Biblical reasons but for logical and health risk reasons too.
if God clearly says it's a sexually immoral sin to have sex on your period, then I'll accept His law.
I admit the bible.org page about the menstruation sex part being thrown away is wrong, but I still added it for the part on incest and bestiality since it is just as a sin as homosexuality, not as God intends for the intimacy of sex, love and marriage. cause the same excuse for homosexual "love" can be used for incestuous "love", pedophilia "love" and bestiality "love".
God has always spoken positively about Godly heterosexual love and marriage, giving heterosexual couples laws they must follow, how they should care and love each other. but never has stated anything of homosexual "love", and if God did approve of it He would have definitely said something, especially since He's very serious about sexual immorality.
yeah I should have added the "and", I just wanted to point out that while love is above all else it doesn't mean that His other laws and commandments are done away with or invalid.
when I do point out certain things being sins in the Bible I'm mainly focusing on correcting Christians who have strayed or have some misconceptions, to keep them on the straight and narrow path.
I know I myself am not perfect, but I know God's Word is. so when I'm correcting people it's not of my own selfish opinions or views, but of God's Holy Word itself. and I'm willing to do all my research, not to make sure the Bible fits to my own views, but to make sure my views are in line with the Bible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can understand that some people might think the whole "looking for trouble" thing, but I don't mind in the least. I'd rather something pointed out to me than to keep being ignorant of it. I can also understand people not always being up for getting into a discussion on what can be such an emotional topic, as I can relate to that.
Thank you very much for taking the time to clear all that up. I hope you can understand why I am skeptical about conclusions based on questionable reasoning, as the reasoning is what backs up the conclusions, but you'll notice I pointed out the parts that I liked while drawing attention to those specific parts that used that kind of inconsistent reasoning.
However, you're using logical, consistent reasoning if you're including sex during a woman's period. And you're right that it's probably not healthy anyway, even though a lot of people value sex over health. God wants us to be healthy and that may also be a factor in the prohibition of other sex acts, in addition to the spiritual component of course.
So long as you're following consistent reasoning, it's not only easier to follow but also is more obvious you're advocating for God's Word since God wouldn't apply anything hypocritically. Does that make sense?
You could always put a disclaimer that you don't necessarily agree with everything stated in the sections you quote in the stamp. I know it may seem obvious that every Christian has a different perspective, but I've actually known quite a few Christians who believe anyone who sees what seems obvious to them is following the Bible and everyone who doesn't is not. For example, I've heard from some Christians that God requires us to breed at some point because He said "be fruitful and multiply" but I believe that applied when it was stated because there were few humans and not for every one for all time. I personally believe some people will never even have sex and yet they could be doing God's will, as supported in Matthew and 1Corinthians, but some people believe I'm wrong. Of course, not everyone even reads the description of the stamp (I'm sure you noticed this), so a disclaimer may not even be necessary.
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying the problem was the Bible. That's not what I meant at all. I agree that God's Word is perfect. I was just saying people who read it are not. Case in point the person from the Bible.org page. We're all still Christians, but none of us see everything exactly the same, meaning we must be wrong on some parts sometimes since God isn't the one who's wrong.
I believe the specific love we're called to is agape love, as defined in 1 Corinthians 13 and advocated throughout the New Testament, and anything that doesn't fit that is a human definition of love, regardless if someone is heterosexual, so that godly love would not be compatible with sin. But since this specific love is from God (1 John), if we have His Spirit in us, we should be able to discern what's loving so long as we listen.
Thank you for taking the time to present a logically consistent approach to that particular section of Leviticus. You're actually the first Christian I've known to include sex during a woman's period as sexual immorality, so I honestly had no idea that argument could be consistent and obviously I was wrong. Maybe if it were as widely talked about as homosexuality, newly married couples would learn more self control in the sex department and the door would be open for more adoption of the many children in need of homes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that's why it's best to look to scripture to see if the person's reasoning is accurate to the Bible's teaching, of course in context.
and yeah, God says our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, so He definitely wants us to keep it healthy and clean, and of course free of sin.
yes it does make sense, God did say He's not the author of confusion, so He definitely wouldn't say anything hypocritically.
within context yes "be fruitful and multiply" was only for population during that time. and as much as it would seem rude to say, the people who think that verse applies to every couple today are definitely wrong. and there's nothing wrong with correcting them when using scripture and context.
it may seem a bit harsh to correct others, but we gotta make sure people aren't confused or spreading around twisted scripture, even if it means to tell them they're wrong. ( as long as it's backed by accurate scripture )
I do agree we should definitely be loving towards everyone, as it is what God says we must do. I don't think we should be supporting other people's sinful behavior though.
I hope it doesn't sound rude of me, but I don't see your responses for my comments about homosexuality being a sin. like, I know this stamp isn't specifically about homosexuality, but my first comment was.
and I know it's also about the old testament, but homosexuality is also condemned in the new testament too, and was still never praised or condoned even if it were a 'loving' relationship, not an agape love, an eros love. the kind that is trying to be like the love between a man and woman.
like with the person I replied to, she seems to like your comment because your reply sounds like something she wants to hear as she seems to be interested in homosexual shippings. it honestly sounds like your comment is in support of homosexuality, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I probably sound like I'm pushy or something, but I think it's a bit confusing.
and forgive me for my short replies, I admit I'm not a chatty person
also forgive me if any of my replies sound rude, cause I'm honestly not trying to be, I'm just a blunt person I guess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, it's not rude. I had actually hoped the line "I can also understand people not always being up for getting into a discussion on what can be such an emotional topic, as I can relate to that." would be subtle yet obvious and mean I didn't have to say something that I felt would be rude like "I'm not in the mood to get into a discussion about that topic right now." But I answered the question for the other person with my opinion and you called me out on it and even pointed out where I was wrong about the law always being applied inconsistently in that argument, so I suppose it's a bit late to say I don't feel like like discussing the topic, even though you gave me a lot to think about and I wanted to have time to process it.
I've seen people be so hypocritical when it comes to same-sex attracted people or couples. I knew a woman who had divorced her husband because they couldn't get along and then married another man and yet compared homosexual people to adulterers. But Jesus clearly said divorce for any reason but fornication was adultery, so when did it stop being adultery? A week after her new marriage? When did it become like adultery for the homosexual couple? When they held hands, kissed, got married, or only after sex? What if they don't have sex and don't even desire it anymore, like most straight couples after a few years? Does it stop being like adultery then? Why are we so much more forgiving of remarried people living in what Jesus called a sin?
I've known so many people who have sex before being married but believe it's fine so long as they think they'll eventually marry that person later. I can't count how many times people have compared the attempted gang rape in Sodom to people who simply have a crush on someone of the same sex. I've known many people who said Romans 1 perfectly illustrates homosexual people, that they become gay after abandoning God, are incapable of anything but lust, and that they're murderers by spreading diseases. I've seen women braid their hair, put on makeup and wear jewelry, but dismiss what Paul wrote against that while being very vocal about homosexual people not being allowed into heaven because of part of what Paul wrote and skipping the rest. I've known even close friends who believe anyone who has same-sex attractions they don't act on hasn't let God heal them or isn't really saved, yet I don't see that anywhere in what they quote. And, as I said, I've heard many people dismiss sex during menstruation as maybe not ideal but definitely not immoral or a big deal, unlike people of the same sex being romantic always being immoral and never having any place.
And that's not even counting online, where I've met someone who called homosexual people names and advocated jailing and executing them, and multiple people lying and pretending to be different people, one even talking to herself on different accounts just to try to convince others how many Christians agree with her interpretation of the Bible with regard to homosexual people. So, I've had every reason to be skeptical with regards to same-sex relationships in the Bible and to err on the side of treating others how I'd want to be treated, if verses I find obvious condemning hypocrisy aren't obvious to many of those I met who were vocal against gay people or relationships. How can they and I see things so differently when there is only one truth?
But what you said made me rethink things in a way all that hypocrisy never could. As strange as it may sound, it never even occurred to me that there even was a non-hypocritical approach to that interpretation of that section of Leviticus because I had never once heard it, even though it was as simple as not throwing something out. That's how rare a lack of hypocrisy has been from my own experiences with people on this topic.
When I think of homosexuality, I don't automatically think of sex, but simply of people with same-sex desires, be they romantic or sexual. I realize homosexuality and homosexual people are two different things and I've explained before to others what people mean when they say they "disagree with homosexuality" and how that doesn't mean disagreeing with homosexuals existing, but it's hard to separate the individuals from the issue and you can see this in young children who realize their crushes are more typical of their opposite-sex peers and feel the same judgment upon them from family and religious upbringing as if they'd committed some horrendous sin.
When I think of the good that should come from spreading God's truth on this subject, I don't see it. I see rejection on one side and pride on the other. But there has to be God's love in between and it seems like that's the minority approach. God is truth but also love, so both truth and love should be inseparable. Truth should always bear the fruit of love, not rejection, lack of faith or pride. So, why doesn't it always work as it should if it is true and applies to everyone? The result of Christians believing this clear condemnation should at least mostly result in good, not rarely. A belief adultery is wrong doesn't result in rampant despair, abandoning faith, or pride, so why does it in this case if it's equally true?
If you've met same-sex couples before, you know how similar they are in the way they interact to opposite-sex couples. And, if you've met Christians who identify as LGBT, you know how indistinguishable some of them are from other Christians. It reminds me of people who are intersex and how you'd never know that they don't necessarily have chromosomes that match their bodies or may have been raised one sex only to discover at puberty they're closer to the other. God created male and female, perfect complementarity in the garden, but what about that tiny minority of people who don't fit that today, after the fall? Is God's plan always the same for every one of them? Is a woman who has XY chromosomes and testicles where her ovaries would be but outwardly looks female be homosexual if she marries a man because inside she is one? Should someone only drawn to members of their own sex be celibate or try to become straight? Is God's plan the same for everyone at all times or is it different for different people?
I know God has standards and I completely understand the concern about spreading twisted scripture, but so often when I ask questions like this, I'm not answered but told that I'm undermining the authority of the Bible or that I'm working for Satan. But you had a non-hypocritical answer to an issue most throw out as an "uncleanness" law along with eating pork or sitting on something a woman sat on and you said that same-sex feelings aren't the sin, distinguishing between desires and actions in a way not enough people do, so maybe I don't have to be so hesitant with you. Maybe you'll understand how no two Christians agree on every part of scripture and why I ask, not to undermine scripture, but to try to see how to use it non-hypocritically when I've seen so much hypocrisy and spreading distress, even from people I dearly love.
I don't know if I'm ready to tell people "you're wrong", even if I feel confident I can clearly show something like why "be fruitful and multiply" isn't for everyone for all of time. I'd rather just show why I believe what I do. After all, won't they just say "Me disagreeing with your interpretation is not me disagreeing with God."? Don't they feel just as confident about their reading of the Bible?
But you don't have that hesitation. So, how do you know with such certainty that you can't be wrong? I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm not just talking about any one topic. Haven't you ever been certain you knew something and then been corrected? I have obviously, which is why it's hard for me to always be so bold, especially immediately after being corrected.
It's probably also affected by personal experiences and observations growing up and then some recent changes at our church where I've seen some ugly sides of people, especially with regard to how they see homeless people, people with mental disabilities, and of course people with same-sex attractions.
I've seen so many people not treat others how they want to be treated, but to treat them how they were treated by them or how they "deserve" to be treated. I do say what I believe, like how that's wrong, but people don't always believe me and I don't want to get into a conflict. But does that make me a coward? You seem to not have that problem, but is it just your personality being "blunt" as you say, or is it something more?
Don't worry about not writing as much. I sometimes ramble. Also, between school, work, volunteering, home life, and my own health issues as well as those I care about, I have let myself get more stressed than I should and I'm sorry if it shows in asking too many questions. I know to take it to God and I don't expect you to answer everything, but you deserved an answer to you asking why I didn't address homosexuality and why it sounded like I support it when I measure against love, so I hope this answers that. If nothing else, I think you can see why I'd be hesitant about opening that can of worms so to speak, but feel free to ask questions. I'm willing to be wrong, again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah the hypocrisy of others can be frustrating when it comes to certain topics. they cherry-pick the verses that suit them and try to justify their own sins saying "it's not as bad as this sin."
but all sins are wrong in God's eyes, which includes adultery, fornication, and even hypocrisy. and they need to be rebuked and corrected just as much as every other sin.
there is good spreading God's truth on the subject, but we live in a sinful world and people would rather hold onto the desires of the flesh than to accept God's truth and love.
and I think it's also the fault of hypocrisy and hate causing people to turn away.
I do think we're near the end times, so people are going to have itching ears and be lovers of sin and won't always accept the truth when it's placed in front of them, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Timothy 4:3-4.
but truth is truth even if few believe in it.
I admit the intersex subject can be difficult, since it's a biological disorder and confuses things. but I do think people being born with genetic, psychological or hormonal abnormalities is no more of a license for sexual sin than someone being born with violent tendencies is license for violence. it would best for the person to live in celibacy and singleness than sexual confusion that will cause a lot of temptations and risks. so they shouldn't pursue marriage until the confusion has been Biblically resolved.
it may seem harsh, but it is no different than the requirement placed on all believers to die to sin and live for righteousness through the power of Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit [ Romans 6 ]
it's not their fault that they were born with certain disorders, and they should still be treated with love and correction as anyone else dealing with certain sins, they're all created in the image of God.
while people do have their different ' interpretations', a lot of them use them out of context or are being hypocritical, that's why I also go into Scripture, I do all the Biblical research I can ( that are true to Scripture ) and I also pray to God and think on it for a long time.
I honestly can't recall any time I've been Biblically corrected when it comes to Bible doctrines, I always made sure that my views are 100% in line with the Bible.
of course I'm not saying I'm perfect, just like every other person I still sin, but I fight it and ask God to forgive me instead of trying to justify my actions or twist Scripture.
I guess I've also really hated the hypocrisy, also the lukewarmness and 'tickling ears' that's been going around, leading people astray from God's teachings. so that's probably why I've been more "blunt" with it, cause I don't want God's Word to be twisted or watered down since the Bible is the foundation for Christians.
oh and if you are dealing with other things and stress I won't mind if you want to wait a while before replying to me again. I can understand that you have a lot of important stuff irl to do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for your understanding and patience. While replying to you is important, you're right that health and other things needs to come first.
I probably complained too much about the hypocrisy of others, when obviously we should always start with our own hypocrisy. For example, I wrote about forgiveness and was called out for being a hypocrite by someone who kept coming to my page with different usernames and leaving antagonistic comments. See, I brought up that fact with them in a way that lacked the kind of forgiveness Jesus taught. I don't block people, but it's hard to permanently forgive sometimes. And then I oppose violence and yet like Power Rangers. I'm not as universally loving as I advocate, etc (the list is long).
But, then I suppose we're all hypocrites to a degree because we're imperfect and that's why Jesus spent so much time talking against hypocrisy. Even the famous "judge not" is really about hypocritical judgment, because again He knew that's an area we humans fail at a lot.
I think another reason some people turn from their faith is because the world defines love so broadly to the point appeasement is love, so Christians can come off as against "love" and therefore hypocritical because we're repeatedly called by God to love. Often, the message of what Christians are against seems so much louder in public discourse than what we're for, so I believe this is an area for positive evangelism, as all humans innately desire love and will look for it pretty much anywhere. Often even things like substance abuse stem from an unfulfilled search for love. It's like the expression of having a God shaped hole in our hearts. Christians should know what love is and I believe should be very vocal in defining it as God does.
I prefer the term addicted to sin over love of sin, as love rejects sin. Also, I feel like that sentiment can dismiss the real root of sin in someone's life, which isn't really the love of it, but the desperate loneliness, despair and feeling unloved that initially led to it. People don't necessarily start out loving to drink, but finding a way to drown their sorrows or just fit in. They don't necessarily start out loving sleeping around, but trying to get rid of the desperate loneliness and need to feel loved. That deeper need is what they need to see many times in order for them to be open to even listen to the gospel message.
You said that there is good in telling people that same-sex romance and intimacy is wrong, but you weren't then clear on what it was, only that people don't want to hear the truth and love sin. I'm not really a fan of "people don't want to hear the truth," as I've heard it and variations many times from atheists claiming I and other Christians would rather believe fantasy than accept reality. Basically, "You know I'm right, you're just in denial." Actually, a couple people said that outright to me.
People don't always have doubts just because they don't want to hear the truth or love sin. Some people see harm from the teaching and good from monogamous same-sex relationships and don't believe God is arbitrary. Adultery, violence, sleeping around, gluttony, lying, stealing, substance abuse, etc, all have obviously negative consequences that violate genuine love. So, maybe you can elaborate? It may be like how those who support abortion often have misconceptions about what really goes on during prenatal development. But they'd never know if we dismissed their belief as a love of sin over truth.
I'm also inclined to favor celibacy until it's clear God has called someone to marriage. I don't find it harsh, but I also don't know what God wants for everyone. I do believe though that the word "single" has this baggage with it of "alone", probably because the world is obsessed with romantic love. Even Christians place such high value on romantic relationships that we can often dismiss friendship as less important and occasionally neglect it, despite it being spoken of so highly by Christ. In fact, the original Greek of the NT uses the different Greek words for love, but only commands one and it's the same form for spouses, family and friends. It's the love Jesus had for Peter, even though it's not the love Peter had back, at least based on the original Greek of their conversion.
So, while the state legally recognizes family and married couples, it doesn't do the same for friends, meaning this is another area I feel the church needs to step up and put more emphasis on, especially if we wish to call some people to be single. People still need intimate human connections.
I understand the comparison of someone being genetically inclined toward violence and that not justifying violent actions. I've even heard of children being born addicted to certain drugs due to exposure in the womb and of course that doesn't mean we should give them those drugs the rest of their life. But human sexuality tends to be more varied. For some, it can be about sex and lust, but for others it's not. Unfortunately, the world sets romantic relationships as the only way to be emotionally intimate with someone (regardless of all the different labels people come up with, it's still romance or sex). So, while it may seem straightforward from the outside that having same-sex attractions does not excuse same-sex relationships, it's not as straightforward to those who really deep down are after a deep, loving relationship.
So, I believe that, if you want to argue for celibacy, again we must focus on the individual core need for love. We must have strong friendship bonds in place as we introduce them to God, as I believe Christianity isn't so much a religion as it's a relationship with our Creator first and then to each other. People are looking for love and love may involve sex, but it certainly doesn't need it or make it somehow more legitimate.
If I understand correctly, you've never once thought you understood something in the Bible only to be corrected later? While I do believe truth is truth, I don't know how everyone can always know all of it all the time since we don't know everything and we don't always listen to the Holy Spirit, so we'll inevitably be wrong at some point. If we were perfect, Christ wouldn't have needed to die and the Bible wouldn't need to keep repeating things we humans fail at. Even Paul occasionally wrote that something was from him and not from God, acknowledging that sometimes even he didn't know if something was God's will. Or, do you just mean that you've never knowingly twisted scripture? I know I also talked about excusing sin, but in this case I'm just talking about unknowingly being wrong and corrected. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
I can't even count how many times I've been wrong in this life as I have learned and grown in God's Word over the years. I'm not omniscient, so I have gaps that mean I will be wrong. I'm not perfect, so I will misread the Bible or not always listen to the Holy Spirit or simply believe interpretations I've grown up hearing. I am human, so I have biases that I am not always conscious of. These aren't excuses, but admissions. So, no matter how certain I am, I am going to be wrong and I must be willing to be corrected, whether God chooses to tell me directly or through others.
With all the different denominations, not just Catholic and Protestant, but Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Reform, Pentecostal, Calvinist, Universalist, etc, and then no two people in any given specific church building seeing all of scripture exactly the same, from big issues like salvation to smaller ones like if women can braid their hear, how have you been able to avoid ever being anything but 100% in line with scripture? What about just being tired one day? I've known some Christians to get so worked up about different interpretations that they say the other isn't really a Christian or is decieved by Satan.
Even if it's true that many Christians were right all along about same-sex romance being wrong, the rise of the gay rights movement has in some ways actually helped Christians. On the one hand, the cost in lives, suffering and rampant turning away from the faith has been horrendous, but on the other hand it forces us to reevaluate issues we take for granted and think about why we believe what we do. It exposed millennia of twisting scripture to condemn people, like comparing them to gang rapists in Sodom or jailing or even killing those suspected of being homosexual. It's why we were finally called out for the harm of conversion therapy and, when major Christian organizations flew speakers and contributed millions to Africa and Russia to push for laws to jail homosexuals after it looked like the battle to do that in the US was lost, we were again called out for not being Christ-like. Sometimes we humans need a good kick in the pants, which is why I have nothing against you being blunt. If anything, I wish I could be so blunt.
I know it's a sin and I've repented of it, but I admit I was jealous of that certainty you have. It's hard to imagine never once having to go back over what I got wrong but always having every single thing always be aligned with scripture. But then I guess I have to accept that I may sometimes mess up the details, but the thing I have absolute certainty of is that God loves me enough to help me back on track.
And, maybe it's not so bad to be wrong. I desperately want to be wrong about burying another cat in less than two months, after burying one every year like clockwork at that time now for five years in a row. I've asked so many times to protect them or just to know His will on this, but I'll settle for being wrong. The same is true for my dad's and my own health getting worse. And, maybe I'm wrong to be open to the possibility that not everyone is called to be heterosexual or celibate, and that's okay too. But I'd still like to understand. I trust Him, but there's so many times in life I'd like your certainty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
if that person kept coming to your page with different usernames to antagonize you there's nothing wrong with blocking them, and blocking people who keep harassing you doesn't mean you don't forgive them. you can forgive people while avoiding any contact so it won't push you over the edge of stress.
oh yeah I won't deny I've been hypocritical before, and always caught myself and tried to do better lol
ah yeah, 'addicted to sin' does make a lot more sense.
oh, and the good in telling them is that they'll understand about God's true purpose of sex/romance/marriage, correcting them and helping them stay true to God's Word, so they won't rush into the sinful desires of their flesh.
same-sex relationships violates God's purpose for sex/romance/marriage. while some may not see the harm in it, it is still committing sin. God's ways are higher than our ways, so even if we as humans don't see a great harm in a certain sin, it can still affect us spiritually.
yeah God does have plans for people, whether it's celibacy or getting married, but it should definitely be obvious God does not plan for people to get into a same-sex relationship since that would go against His true meaning for romance/sex/marriage.
but yeah, I agree, this world is super obsessed with romance/sex.
it doesn't mean you're completely alone if you're single, friends are there and friendship is very important too.
and I don't see the point in putting such a big deal with the state's views on relationships, I think they mostly do that stuff because there's financial and special benefits. but I do agree the church should put more emphasis on friendships too. I've known people who get depressed over being single, them thinking they're 'unlovable' or 'worthless' because they don't have a boy/girlfriend. I'm sick of society's obsession with romance/sex and causing this stuff.
yeah, as far as I can remember I don't think I've been corrected when it comes to scripture on salvation/sins/repentance. I always made sure to research a subject before being 100% sure of it. the only things I've been corrected for was when I did wrong, like insulting people or taking something that wasn't mine for example.
I think one thing that I can think of that I'm not 100% sure of in the Bible is that I think all angels are just males. of course I'm still researching that topic, and I don't think that's a salvation issue that matters though lol.
ehh, I'm not a fan of denominations, I don't like having all this separation, and a lot of the separation does seem to trail away from the Bible sometimes.
I just take the Bible as it is, I don't wanna twist it or make it fit my own views selfishly. it's about God/Jesus, not me. 🤷♀
well, it's not an if "Christians are right about", I mean, like I've been saying God's Word clearly says same-sex relationships/romance/marriage is wrong.
like, I'm not saying this is my own personal opinion or interpretation, I'm just stating what God's Word already clearly says.
I do agree that the hate and harm towards gays is wrong. they deserve to be treated with love and kind correction, not hate and threats.
and I'm so sorry for the loss of your cat :[
I hope you don't mind me asking, but do you know at all what's been causing that to happen to your cats? were they indoor or outdoor cats?
forgive me if it's getting to nosy, I LOVE cats and just wanted to see if I could understand what could be causing it.
and I hope you and your father will get better, I can definitely pray for y'all.
oh and forgive me for my short and unorganized-ish reply
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Things on the internet don't typically stress me out like things outside the internet and I haven't faced real harassment or death threats like others online, so I personally believe God has called me not to block as part of treating others how I'd want to be treated. Meaning, at least for me, it would be immoral to block.
While some people are just seeking attention because they don't know the cure for their loneliness, there are many people who have hurt they don't know how to deal with, so they either internalize the hurt and hurt themselves or externalize it and lash out at others. Either way, they are spreading pain. In that way, I see negative comments as an opportunity to help others try to identify what's really bothering them and get to the heart of what we all need (God). It takes patience and people aren't always ready, but I believe it is what I should try to do. Though, I'm not trying to say it's what God calls everyone to.
As for that specific case, the person commented on something I wrote about how constantly bringing up the past that you've said you forgave isn't real forgiveness. Yet I was there bringing up the past I said I forgave with that person. It was just that we had that exact conversation the previous three times and they'll apologize and I'll forgive them and then they'll come back and do the same thing again with a new account. But I specifically quoted in what I wrote how Jesus taught to keep forgiving and how that forgiveness doesn't hold grudges or keep track of wrongs, but wipes the slate clean, as God through Christ does for us when we repent. So, maybe you can see how I came off as a pretty big hypocrite by bringing up the past in that case.
I didn't mean to imply that I believe the state should start licencing friendship. Even having them so involved in marriage and family can feel too far sometimes, but then I tend to lean libertarian in many instances. I just meant it's a big opportunity for us to fight what we both seem to agree is way too much of a focus on romance. I mean, most popular songs are about romance. Most shows and movies feature it. Even in middle and high school, anyone not dating is often looked down on. I've heard people use the exact word you did: feeling "worthless". And, if two friends of the same sex are "too close", they're called gay, making especially males afraid to be too emotionally close to their friends, which is a tragedy, as friendships should be close. You should have someone who's there to cry with when things go wrong and to laugh with when things go right, but myself being male I know all too well how showing such emotions can be seen as "feminine" or "weak" for males. Of course, please don't read this as me saying romance is bad, just that it's elevated at the expense of other relationships.
I think a lot of needless suffering could have been averted throughout history if the focus had been on God's design for romance and marriage in conjunction with the equal value of other human relationships that aren't romantic as well as self control rather than on how terrible same sex relationships or desires are. People rarely choose their feelings, so the focus on the negative has been harmful throughout history. So, I appreciate that you have an answer to the good that can come from it rather than the way too many people approach it, focusing on how wrong things are without any positive alternative or reasoning.
I'm not a fan of denominations either. I see Christians so divided and wish we could work together more, as I believe we are called to. I was just pointing out different perspectives that exist within Christianity. I'm not exaggerating when I say I can't imagine how you could be so confident that there's only one thing in the whole Bible that you're not 100% certain about, meaning you know all the rest with 100% certainty, despite theologians debating verses literally for millennia. Not even just 99%? How do you know there's no chance you could be wrong and aren't just over confident? I'm not trying to be rude and I'm sorry if it comes off that way. Or do you mean only sin and salvation issues? Even then, I really don't see how it's possible for a human to almost never have to take anything on faith or the mystery of God but be certain about almost everything. I could study scripture all my life and still have a finite knowledge and therefore a finite certainty simply because I learn at a finite rate in a finite lifetime, but it actually gives me something to look forward to even more, by finally understanding those mysteries and experiencing God in a way so deep and profound and eternal, to finally know what once required faith alone.
Since the only thing in the Bible you could think of that you aren't certain about 100% is if angels are always male, I was wondering what Paul was really saying when he wrote women will be saved through childbirth? A friend of mine and I were having a discussion about that, since a friend of hers was pressured into early childbearing by her family and church so she won't go to hell. Obviously the literal reading contradicts what else Paul wrote, so it means something else. There are at least dozens of other heavily debated verses that have countless interpretations because they don't make sense literally, but I'll settle for knowing that one for now, especially knowing a woman who can't conceive and another who's had two miscarriages.
I was using "if Christians are right about" to acknowledge that what seems obvious to some is not to others. There are many cases where someone must have been taught what the Bible is "really" saying in order to come to a conclusion that differs from a literal reading but is nonetheless the traditional view. Homosexual relationships just happen to be one of those issues where different interpretations exist. While you may have the confidence to say that you know for certain, I'm not as good at that 100% confidence, especially in cases like this or procreation or excommunication. Of course, I'm hesitant to acknowledge that sometimes, as many times people become personally offended if someone doesn't believe exactly as they do, especially if it seems obvious to them, and so they must conform the other person or cut off all contact with them lest the doubt infect them. It may sound crazy, but I've met so many people who react that way. The irony is they complain about others doing it. It's abundantly common when some Christians and some LGBT people interact. It's like identical thinking, just with a different "side" taken.
Thank you for offering prayers! They're of course appreciated. Also, I don't mind talking about the loss of cats as long as it's not in great detail of their dying moments, as obviously I don't want to dwell on that.
So, last year Princess died when she somehow sliced right through the carrying case when we were taking her to the vet and she ran into the street (I was dropped off directly in front of the door, so it happened fast). She was ten months old and now we have new carriers. The year before, Mr. Fluff had three kinds of cancer, FIV, FLV, and died from fluid in his lungs. He was just under five years old and we are now even more vigilant about our cats' health. The year before that, Tiger died when Punchy cased her outside and she was hit by a car. She had just turned four years old and we became much more cautious about the cats going outside. The year before that, Grand Paw died of anemia. He was old, but we are more active about dealing with fleas now. The year before that, Baby died of kidney failure, though we never figured out the cause. He had just turned two years old and we were more careful with leaking antifreeze in the garage and other chemicals under the sink, etc after that since poisoning was a likely cause.
So, after five years of burying a cat around the same time, perhaps you can understand why I'd worry about it happening this year too. We keep trying to learn each time and become more cautious, but there's always something new that we don't seem to foresee. We also keep having cats appear in our lives. It came to the point that we had to take the latest kitten who mysteriously appeared in our back yard to the shelter to be adopted (he was adopted the first day because he was such a sweetheart). We currently have seven cats. Five are Princess's kittens and they will turn a year old next month. Peewee we rescued when he fell out of a tree at five weeks old back in June 2016. Punchy has been with us since he wandered into our back yard as a kitten in late 2011. Peewee ended up with an infection and a fever, so we took him to the vet last week, but he's slowly recovering. Still, you can imagine my uneasiness even though it's too early yet in the year to lose a cat based on the pattern of the last five years.
My dad has had a series of injuries that have been increasing gradually in frequency. His latest required major surgery on his right arm, so it will take six months to a year to heal and some muscles will never regrow. His last injury before that made him permanently lose some of his memories because he fell ten feet and hit his head on concrete. It's part of why my parents have been trying to find a way to retire early. I've had health problems all my life and they've been gradually getting worse, so I can't necessarily support them forever. We do what we can, but honestly sometimes I just want the world to end and Christ to finally return. It's like not sleeping for a really long time and that desire so strongly just to finally lay down and rest. I don't feel like I'm asking for too much or putting others before God simply by asking that those I care about, whether human or animal, to be healthy and protected or for the world to end so there won't be any suffering anymore. But, maybe it's the wrong thing to ask and I must accept His will in this, even though I don't understand it, not even remotely close to 100%.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
In addition, OT law, while not able to save us, it is a type and shadow of the things to come. "Such things are only a shadow of what is to come and they have only symbolic value; but the substance [the reality of what is foreshadowed] belongs to Christ." Col 2:17 Christ did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Anything we find in Scripture is a symbol of what God intends... in this case, in the subject of which you speak, Scriptures is very clear in the OT as well as the NT of what "practice" God calls sin.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
even those laws are in both the old and new testament and still apply for Christians today
I have a stamp that explains it in the description, of course using the Bible, since it's the foundation for Christians
starrceline.deviantart.com/art…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0