| Wonktonodi said:
All I see here is it being a punishment for other crime, nothing forbidding it or the punishments for it. Once again if Christ said you can't be inpure by what you put in your bodies. Thus making all the dietary laws void, the laws of mixed fabric void some would be so bold as to argue all the laws regarding how you grow food and tread your animal void. Why should how it's grown or treated matter if what you eat can't be wrong? Christ should have made the exception. |
True, there is nothing forbidding it, nor a punishment, but it doesn't mean it is not considered evil and against the will of God, right? There are things not mentioned in the law of Moses that God considers evil but doesn't explicitely say so. We know that because, as such, the law of Moses is incomplete and the law of Christ (see NT) is absolute perfection. Jesus brought points that Moses never mentions, so it is more complete.
On another note, I have absolutely no doubt Christ's unwritten law says not to eat your neighbor given the above passage and the Spirit of God in my heart that testifies (yes, I believe in that).
As for your 2nd paragraph I don't see anything wrong with it. Indeed, these are all things that have to do with the "outside of the cup". However, certain rules have a little more to do with the heart. For example, one law on food is not to cook a young goat in its mothers milk (I think). The analog of that in the New Testament is not to eat blood, since blood is the life of the animal. Things like that. You make parallels as you go. I'm not saying my approach is failproof, but it's pretty solid. Name more and we'll see where we go.
As I said, Jesus didn't state the exception because it wasn't brought up to him. He declared all foods clean, and actually Paul goes so far as to say all things are permitted, but not all is profitable. As such you can eat meat from a dead animal, and cook a young goat in its mother's milk, but the important thing is that it does not "scandalize" (is the word) another brother. In that sense nothing a person does condemns them except the sin against the holy spirit (calling the spirit of christ the spirit of satan).
Mind you, the spirit of God testifies to a person. So you would ask yourself questions like "why am I eating a young goat in its mother's milk?" and you'd think hmmm, maybe that's not really cool and kind of disrespectful to the creature. Or "why am I drinking animal blood?" maybe that's some practice derived from some satanic lust for life (idk, just throwing out ideas, maybe I'm the "weaker brother", see below). But yes, the spirit of God is meant to testify to a believer in substitute for the written law of Moses. Also, that's why some believers drink alcohol and others don't because it's up to the believer in the end, and the command is to not "insult" the conscience of a "weaker" brother. The commandment for alcohol for example is not "do not drink", but "do not be drunk with wine".
Wow, I don't think I was clear at all. This is where it kind of breaks down, but in practice it's much more manageable than in theory because there is alot of give and take, and the christian faith is not meant to be followed in legalism. Sexual immorality though is pretty high on the priority list, as many christian texts discourage it strictly and mention believers who take part in fornication that are plagued with sickness due to their practices. So all is possible but not all is profitable. But a believer who commits to sexual immorality without looking back is pretty much set for hellfire unless an even greater miracle than their first conversion happens.
