Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Leviticus 18 22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Leviticus 19 19 " 'Keep my decrees. " 'Do not mate different kinds of animals. " 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. 27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Why is the prohibition against homosexuality still in place (as many claim), while many of us wear blended clothing to church every week, and few of us have beards and long hair? Same book, few verses apart. We went around the literalism mulberry bush a little while ago, and many seemed perturbed if any part of Scripture was questioned or not taken literally. What's your excuse for your cotton/wool blend socks and your lack of temple locks...? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Problem is, Brother Bravus, that the prohibition for homosexuality is not limited to Leviticus. Are you suggesting that homosexuality is not a sin? Take a look at 1 Cor. 6:9. Moreover it is not a happy lifestyle. Don't fall for the Hollywood packaged gay lifestyle. While there may be a small percentage of gays that are happy in their life style, they are the minority of the minority. God knows best and in prohibitting homosexuality He was not withholding anything good from any of us. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Author Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Nonono - I agree that there are lots of other prohibitions on homosexuality elsewhere in the Bible, including in the New Testament. My actual concern here is with exegesis: why do we choose some verses and discard others very nearby...? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Author Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Aye, you've got me - I'm a blendophobic: I hate and fear blended fabrics, and persecute their wearers whenever I can... Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 At the risk of being branded a homophobe (which I don't THINK I am, but maybe it's lurking somewhere in the recesses of my subconscious?), I'd argue that there are some things which were in the Levitical code but which weren't carried through to the New Testament. Mixing fibers isn't something I recall reading in the NT. Prohibitions agains homosexuality are in both testaments. This to me lends more credence to the arguments against it. Yes, I know, the NT does speak against women braiding hair, speaking up in church, etc, so one's point could be carried forth this way. However, it seems to me that if something is spoken against in both Testaments, it is something which should be paid closer attention to than something that appears in Leviticus only, or in Paul only. Michelle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted January 31, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 This is a topic that I do not want to get too involved with, I am only glad it is not an issue in my life, and I have enough issues in my life to focus on. But as I enjoy learning about Biblical backgrounds, I will comment on a couple of things I've come across, but have not studied extensively, with the hopes that they will at least be pieces of information that you may or may not find useful. I have not been convinced of this information, and I am not proposing these ideas beyond the fact of making you aware that this information is out there so that you can use it in our study. First, the Old Testament text, including the other things listed her, is apperently in the context of actions used in idol worship. The ancients eventually felt that they needed to help Baal fight Leviathan, and that was through these ceromonies that included orgies with men, women, children, including little babies, and animals. This was felt to help Baal to win in the fight over Leviathan, so that the gods of life could bring prosperity, instead of having famine rule. Also related to this, people in the ancient world believed that if a man raped another man, that he was stealing prosperity from his victim: that his wife would bear the children that this victim's wife would have born. That his sheep and goats would produce lambs and kids that his victim's animals would have produced. That his garden would produce the food that his victim's guarden would have produced. Apperently these are the two contexts of the Old Testament prohabitions, both which are prohibitions to happilly married heterosexual males who thought they could help their wifes and children be more prosperous by ocasionally having sex with a man in one of these two situation. I even heard a lecture from the Adventist Theological Society that touched on this topic, presented that these two points are indeed the context of the verses, but then gave a quick (and hard to follow) reason as to why we should not limit the quote to the context where they are found, but expand it to include today's homosexuals. I am even less familiar with studies in the New Testament quotes; but I have come across a few places that indicate that the New Testament texts can be translated one of two ways: Either the act of Homosexuality, or the act of having sex with children, and that the translaters don't know if it is correct to translate the New Testament texts to be against homosexuality, or if these texts should be limited to no more than prohibiting adults from having sex with children. Once again, I am not that familiar with the details of the studies in these texts, and I have not been convinced as to their validity. Now I will say that I end up confused. I've seen enough of the problems against the traditional way of reading the texts to know that more study should be done before we get too comfortable with our interpetation of the texts. Therefore I figure that at the second coming I am in danger of running into one of two possible condemnations from Jesus: The first is if I limit these texts to their context and become open to the possible alternative translation, and encourage those dealing with homosexuality to try to reach out to God and to do the best they can (and of course both promiscuity and cheating on your mate are without a doubt clearly condemmed by scripure to no matter who you are). and encourage that while it is ideal to be in a heteral sexual relationship, to encourage them to at least do the best they can and to reach out to God. When Jesus comes he could tell me that I am wrong because it is a horrible sin and I should have taken the broader application and come out strongly against homosexuality in all aspects, and then Jesus would condem me for being too soft on sin and offering false hope to sinners. On the other hand, if I end up taking the hardline approach against homosexuality, I open myself up to the danger of Jesus condeming me for not leaving the texts in context, or to at least ignoring the fact that there might be problems with our popular interpetation to at least be careful about being too hardlined on the issue, and I'd have to face Jesus crying as he points out those who are lost that I drove away because they did not know how to fit God's love into their lives as they are struggling with this problem. Since I am aware that these texts are not as clear cut as we tend to think they are, and especially since I do not know too much specifically about these texts, and since I am in a "Damned if I do and damned if I don't" danger when I am finally face to face with Jesus, and face the danger of receiving one or the other condemnation from Jesus, personally I would rather hear the first condemnation from the lips of Jesus than to have to hear him pronounce on me the second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted January 31, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Springett, Ronald, M. HOMOSEXUALITY IN HISTORY AND THE SCRIPTURES: SOME HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HOMOSEXUALITY. Biblical Research Institute, 1988, 173 pages. I have stated so before. But, I consider the above work to be a classic work of great value. It is probably (?) out of print. But, I am told that it is available on either E- Bay, or Amazon.com. I do not remember which. For your interest, I will cite one statement in the book: "Of the many texts in the New Testament interpreted as pro- or anti-homosexual statemetns, on closer inspection, most are not really relevant at all." p. 142 It is of interest to me that the term "homosexual" does not have a common defination. As Springett says: " . . .the term 'homosexual' covers a number of conditions, situaitons, and activities that are not morally equivalent." p. viii Well, enough on that. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 18:1 THEN the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am the LORD your God. 3 ‘You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you…. I'm not sure what they were doing with their hair & beards in Egypt and Canaan, but whatever it was God didn't want Israel to copy them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Author Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Yep, you're right, of course Michelle - and yep, there are more on the gay thing in the New Testament, while the blended fabrics thing drops by the wayside. I really don't have a huge burden for proving that 'it's OK to be gay!' But say it is a sin - so is any coveting (greed and wanting what someone else has) and for that matter breaking the Sabbath. And in Christian theology terms, all sins are as bad as each other. (In real human terms, of course, murder is much worse in its consequences than stealing, for example, so a gay life may be more damaging than a covetous one.) My point really is what I said on Sabbath in the sermon - we're *all* sinners in various ways, so how do we deal with that? The most effective way is by helping, not by harming, IMO... I guess the other thing is, I do know people who are gay. One guy I went to school with came out when he was about 20, but no-one was that surprised - I'd been there when he came back from fooling around with a cute girl, incredibly frustrated that he just couldn't get turned on. There's also a gay couple in my department at work. I really, honestly don't think it's a choice - some people, for whatever reason, are born that way. Are you ready to say to someone 'OK buddy, no sex for life for you?' Or 'OK buddy, marry a woman and make her life miserable because you don't desire her?' It's kind of a catch-22: sex outside marriage is a sin, but we won't let you get married to someone you actually want. (And what often used to happen was that these guys went into the priesthood for a celibate life, but that didn't always work so well. Gays are not pedophiles, but sometimes they weren't successful in stomping down their sexuality and preyed on teenagers...) So it comes back to the Ideal and the Real. Maybe in Eden and shortly after no-one was born gay, but now that they are, what do we do with it? As I say, lifelong celibacy because of an accident of birth is a lot to ask. The ideas Kevin cited are interesting too, and I will look for the book Gregory cited. The larger point is back to the literalism issue though - those who insist that every word of Genesis 1-2 be taken literally pick and choose elsewhere in the Old and New Testament... why? What is the standard for deciding what is literal and still applies and what is not? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Author Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 And I just found out the book is in the CUC library and I can order it from my university library! Yay! Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted January 31, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Re: "I really, honestly don't think it's a choice - some people, for whatever reason, are born that way." I do not believe that true homosexuality is a choice. But, I believe that the cause of homosexuality is multifactoral, and therefore, for some, it may not be an issue of birth, although for others it is. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Author Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Yep, good point of precision - I guess I meant 'born that way' as a synonym for 'not chosen', but there are lots of factors. This issue is in the news right now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4215427.stm Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I confess to some fatigue. It's difficult for me to take questions like this seriously. Even a cursory examination of the text reveals drastic differences in Chs. 18 and 19. Chapter 18 also prohibits incest of all stripes, and bestiality, and child sacrifice. Using your selective reading and logic, we can ask: Quote: Why is the prohibition against [child sacrifice or bestiality] still in place (as many claim), while many of us wear blended clothing to church every week, and few of us have beards and long hair? Same book, few verses apart. Lev. 17 deals with ceremonial uncleanness concerning blood and diet. Lev. 18 concerns sexual ethics, and rather than "uncleanness," the these things are described as "detestable." Strongs: "a heinous crime." Lev. 19 rarely characterizes what it prohibits--it just says no. In the case of eating fruit of trees the first three years, this is described as "forbidden," but the Hebrew literally means "uncircumcised." Lev. 20 specifies the penalty for violating the prohibitions of Lev. 18. That penalty? Death. In my brief examination, I could find no penalty clause for the violation of the prohibitions in Lev. 19. There's no deep exegetical problem here. Doing a quick survey reveals the differing contexts, and differing severity of these infractions. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Author Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Except that the chapter and verse divisions were added much later. This is all of a piece in literary terms. And we don't stone for adultery these days either... Ed, I recognise what you're saying. But my challenge is to the kind of strict Biblical literalists who will quote 'not a jot nor tittle' at us... What's the criterion? Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I would not be surprised if one day someone will discover something abut wearing different kinds of materials. Usually those biblical things were for the benefit of the person more than it was anything else. Science has a few years left to uncover things that are not known today. I do know, and I have told my wife this years ago, and it had nothing to do with this text, that if I were Polyester and Cotton my energy is zapped early in the day. I have no idea why, I doubt if Moses was talking about Polyester. Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Yes, the chapter and verse numbers were added much later. But the literary structure is clear, even in translation. These chapter divisions mirror the literary structure. Each of these chapters begins with, "And the Lord said to Moses. . ." and continue until the next such phrase, which begins the next chapter. It could hardly be clearer. No, we don't stone for adultery. That's because our context has changed. But the penalties or lack of same are an indication of the severity of the offense in God's eyes. Adultery is still a serious a very serious violation, whether "everyone lies about sex," or not. Surely you understand the covenantal relationship established at Sinai, so that violations of the 10 Commandments, and these serious infractions in Leviticus, were the functional equivalent of treason. The offenses in chapter 18 are clearly more severe than the others, as indicated by the penalties in the text itself. Once again, these are not difficult things to see. Quote: But my challenge is to the kind of strict Biblical literalists who will quote 'not a jot nor tittle' at us... What's the criterion? I've given you several criteria. Someone has said, "We have too much Biblical literalism and too little Biblical literacy." In opposing the one, be careful not to appear to lack the other. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Author Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Good and fair call, and thank you for the clear criteria, which make perfect sense to me. /me withdraws from the field, vanquished but grinning, because he learned something! Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted January 31, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Bravus: What helps me is the idea that the law of God is absolute, but the applications of God’s law are not absolute. Through out the Old Testament and New Testament you find applications that change or become modified. For example: The Hebrews were not to take anything from the cities they destroyed because it was all given to Yahweh. Jericho was destroyed and Achen took something, there was trouble, he was killed for breaking this application. But as they moved on to the next city God said that he would keep everything from Jericho, but would give the gifts from the other cities to the Hebrews. No Moabite was to come into Israel. However, when a Moabite lady renounced her religion and accepted the God of Israel, she was welcome to not only come into Israel, but her decedents became kings of Judah and Israel, and even Israel's Messiah has her name in the geology list. The application said that no Canaanite was to join, but when the most wicked of the Canaanite (her name meant that even the Canaanites saw her as an evil and wicked person) converted, she was welcomed (thus indicating that the command could have just as easily have made room for other Canaanites as well) Now, when you get to Genesis 1 and 2, we need to keep three things in mind: First, we have added many traditions that filter how we read, interpet and apply Gen 1 and 2. Many of these traditions may not be correct, and can hinder our understanding. Second, the way the Bible presents Genesis 1 and 2 is written in a way to apply the principle of Creation to people who were familiar with the Assyrian creation stories. If the writer were to be alive today and know about Evolution, he would have presented this principles in a way to show how Divine quick creation of a fairly new world would make more sence to the evolutionists. The third point is that through out the Bible, Gen 1 and 2 keeps getting pointed back to in a very stable and consistant manner. Even Hebrews 11 has as faith's foundation the two point idea of the thing not seen and the thing hoped for, and goes on to define the thing not seen as our Genesis 1 and 2 creation. To do away with Genesis 1 and 2 would be doing away with half our faith. Although from point #2, I believe that we do not have all the details of just how creation occured, from the way Genisis 1 and 2 is used through out scripture, I have to hold that God did indeed create the world in 6 days, rested on the Sabbath, and while I do not have to be a stickler for the 6,000 years, I do not see how we can be fair to the Biblical records go back much beyond the idea of thousands of years. Infact we can see an example of the principle being absolute but the application not being absolute is in how the young Mrs. White wrote in support of creation being 6,000 years ago, and how the older Mrs. White continued to believe in creation even though she no longer believed that you needed to accept the 6,000 years. (It's sad how our typical Adventist love to quote the younger Ellen White on this point and reject the counsel of the older Ellen White on this same topic) As to Genesis 1 and 2, God still loves those who have questions about it, and the Bible ends where it began, at the start of a new creation week, where many who understand evolution would say "Oh, so that is how this fits in" and many of those of us who are strong creationists will have our faces turn red as we appologise on our hardness on a few points that we migh not understand how to fit into our understanding. I just noticed your last line asking "What is the standard for deciding what is literals and still applys and what is not." You are asking two different questions here. You are asking one question about what is literal, which needs to be taken into consideration as we study Biblical symbolism and say the books of Daniel and Revelation. The second question is "What still applies" and much very much still applies, and most things still applie under the same context. For example, there is the command not to start a fire on the Sabbath. Orthodox Jews look for gentiles to turn on lights, and walks so not to start their car. The command not to start a fire on the sabbath was givven to people living in a warm climate, where they could keep putting wood on a fire, and where it cold be quite time consuming with rubbing wood or sparks from different stones to try to start a fire. Today where it is so easy to start fires, this application would not apply. However if I were out on a mission trip to a back jungle country, and needed primitive methods of starting fires, I'd be sure that I had a good stock of fire wood by Friday afternoon. Same with the texts of this thread, the clear area that if someone is heterosexual, but feels that he can improve his life by occasionally seeing a man, or inviting another man to join him and his wife in a trio, or even those who find themselves sexually attracted to both sexes, and of course we support monogomany, so they can be fairly happilly married to a woman, this text will indeed apply. The debated area is about those you discuss in some of the earlier paragraphs in your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted January 31, 2005 Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Oops, I replied to Bravus last post on page one and did not notice page two. I like how Ed pointed out that adultery is still a sin even though we no longer stone them. I have also read in a few places and heard in lectures that the Hebrew word translated "detestable" or "a heinous crime." is a very technical and precise word that is never used in any other context except when talking about Canaanite fertility orgies. The Canaanites kept the same exact same feasts that the Hebrews kept, with many of the same elements in the celebration, but there were to be elements of the feast that the Hebrews were absolutely not to include in their celebration of the feasts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveM1936 Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Breaking any of the ten commandments is sin. There are many ways to break the 7th commandment. 1. Cheating on your wife. 2. Lusting in your mind without acting on it. 3. Masterbation. 4. Being gay. 5. Having sex without being married. 6. Being involved with pornagory. 7. Internet sexual sites. I'm sure some of you could add to the list. If one is going to single out man to man or woman to woman sex as sin, then in fairness all the other ones in the list should be included. In short, as I read the bible, all sex outside of the marriage relationship is sin. What is sin. Sin is a condition on the mind. We concentrate on what a person DOES. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus made clear that sin starts in the mind even if it is never acted on. Sin is something are ARE, not something we DO. I used to tell my boys that those living in glass houses should not throw stones. There are many ways to be an addict. Addiction is taking something that of itself is good and making a wrong use of it. Sex addiction is very common. There are several 12 step groups aimed at helping sex addicts. You might be surprised to learn that most sex addicts are addicted to internet sex. I do not know whether a person is born gay or not. But when a person finds that he\she is gay, that person finds himself\herself in a condition of spirit and mind that he cannot change. No amoung of willpower or attempts to change one's thinking will make a gay person, straight. When such people are converted, their natural attraction to the same sex usually does not change. But one learns that whatever the addictions and desires of our fallen natures have been forgiven. We are not held accountable for the nature we were born with. Also, we are not acccountable for being tempted. IF a person sees someone of the same sex and is immediately attracted, that is not sin. One learns to depend on Jesus as Mary did. If left to ourselves, we will always yield. If we are leaning on Jesus, we will not yield. As with any sin or addiction, the secret is beginning and maintaining a close relationship with our Best Friend. He does not get angry with us when we slip. His hand is always reaching out to us. I am a parttime security guard in a grocery store. One day a family came in. The couple had two young boys about 2 and 3. The 3 year old was looking at me, smiling. Yet at the same time he had his hand stretched toward his father. He could not see the father while he looked at me. But the father had his hand reaching back to his son. The son just assumed that because his father loved him, he had his hand ready to grasp his little hand. Your friend, Dave M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Quote: 4. Being gay. I'm no apologist for homosexual behavior, but do you really intend to indicate their state of "being" is a sin? And what do you do with statements like, "Whatever is not of faith is sin"? (see Rom 14:23). Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Quote: The larger point is back to the literalism issue though - those who insist that every word of Genesis 1-2 be taken literally pick and choose elsewhere in the Old and New Testament... why? What is the standard for deciding what is literal and still applies and what is not? The question is not about "literalism" in the issue you brought to the forefront....As far as your straw man goes, I answered your question when I quoted the following: Lev 18:1 THEN the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘I am the LORD your God. 3 ‘You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you…. I'm not sure what they were doing with their hair & beards in Egypt and Canaan, but whatever it was God didn't want Israel to copy them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Bravus Posted January 31, 2005 Author Moderators Share Posted January 31, 2005 Fair enough - I've already withdrawn from the field but I accept the added clarification. Quote Truth is important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Re: "I really, honestly don't think it's a choice - some people, for whatever reason, are born that way." I do not believe that true homosexuality is a choice. But, I believe that the cause of homosexuality is multifactoral, and therefore, for some, it may not be an issue of birth, although for others it is. And neither do you guys have a choice because you are sinners by conception (see Ps 51:5)....Does that mean that we cannot experience power over the flesh as we mature while standing in grace by faith alone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Quote: And what do you do with statements like, "Whatever is not of faith is sin"? (see Rom 14:23). Lifted out of its context it could mean anything...but in context it should explain itself! Romans 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One man has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 Let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall give praise to God.” 12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.