Double Standards: Does the liberty in Christ have limitations?

[stunnedbygrace]

The Talmud Yerushalmi (Bikkurim 2) states that early death takes place before the offender becomes fifty, but Talmud Bavli (Moed Kattan 28a) holds that it happens between the ages of fifty and sixty.

Oh...okay, I thought you meant it was a verse in the bible.

 

[shnarkle]

Was God thinking only about oxen when he said this?

That's not the same as what you're suggesting by "you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?"

No one is denying that the scriptures are pregnant with truth. You seem to think that just because it can have other applications, it no longer applies literally. This is a Non Sequitur. Plenty of pastors love to quote "do not yoke an ox with a jackass", and apply it to marriage, but it is cruel and inhumane to yoke an ox with a jackass. They are not only unequally yoked, but the jackass sees the ox chewing its cud, and will eventually stop working because he's not being fed as well.

The law states not to cut a limb from a live animal, and eat it. It states not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk. These are both cruel and inhumane things to do. They show a lack of knowledge or sensitivity to the natural order God has created.

The law states not to have fraudulent weights and measures when engaging in commercial transactions. There are all sorts of spiritual applications that can be gleaned from this law, but that doesn't then mean it's perfectly acceptable to defraud people by charging them more and giving them less. Nor does it mean one may engage in fraudulent commercial activities.

 

[shnarkle]

Oh...okay, I thought you meant it was a verse in the bible.

No. I pointed out it was from the Talmud. The Talmud is nowhere to be found in the bible. This is yet another reason why Christians are clueless. They naturally assume that the Talmud is recorded in the bible. It's nowhere to be found anywhere in the bible. Here again, this goes to the topic under discussion in that when Peter points out that it is unlawful to associate with gentiles, he is not referring to the Mosaic law, but to the traditions that were added much later in the Talmud. Even the original oral traditions didn't stipulate Jews couldn't associate with gentiles. The Mosaic law points out that it is perfectly acceptable to eat with them as well, and the Talmud points out that a Jew may even eat out of the same bowl with an unclean gentile.

What Peter is referring to are lies, and God does not lie. Christians conflate the lies of legalistic Pharisees with Gods' law.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

That's not the same as what you're suggesting by "you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?"

No one is denying that the scriptures are pregnant with truth. You seem to think that just because it can have other applications, it no longer applies literally. This is a Non Sequitur. Plenty of pastors love to quote "do not yoke an ox with a jackass", and apply it to marriage, but it is cruel and inhumane to yoke an ox with a jackass. They are not only unequally yoked, but the jackass sees the ox chewing its cud, and will eventually stop working because he's not being fed as well.

The law states not to cut a limb from a live animal, and eat it. It states not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk. These are both cruel and inhumane things to do. They show a lack of knowledge or sensitivity to the natural order God has created.

The law states not to have fraudulent weights and measures when engaging in commercial transactions. There are all sorts of spiritual applications that can be gleaned from this law, but that doesn't then mean it's perfectly acceptable to defraud people by charging them more and giving them less. Nor does it mean one may engage in fraudulent commercial activities.

You think I think it It doesn't apply literally? So, for instance, you think I say it is okay to physically murder someone, as long as I don't murder them in my heart, in spirit? But that can't be, since the murder was committed first inside. If the inside of the cup is clean, the outside just will be as well. If I don't murder in spirit, inside, it will not happen outside. However, I can follow the law outwardly and never shoot someone, but in spirit I murder 5 people daily. So, in that case, have I followed the law?

 

[shnarkle]

You think I think it It doesn't apply literally?

What else is it supposed to mean when you say: "you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?" He was literally talking about oxen.

So, for instance, you think I say it is okay to physically murder someone, as long as I don't murder them in my heart, in spirit?

Bad example. Try again.

But that can't be, since the murder was committed first inside. If the inside of the cup is clean, the outside just will be as well. If I don't murder in spirit, inside, it will not happen outside.

True.

However, I can follow the law outwardly and never shoot someone, but in spirit I murder 5 people daily. So, in that case, have I followed the law?

No. You're defiled and guilty just like those who do commit murder. Again, you seem to be making my points for me. Those who keep the law in their heart keep it outwardly as well. Christianity doesn't teach that though. Christianity justifies transgressing God's laws. Christianity says that the law is done away with. Christians can profane the Sabbath in their hearts and outwardly as well. Christians can eat whatever they please because the literal law is of no consequence. It only foreshadows spiritual food, or some spiritual principle which they never get around to explaining.

I would simply point out that there's no need to cherry pick, and therefore the Cannibal may continue to eat human beings after he converts to Christianity. If we're consistent in our reasoning, they can kill their next meal as well because no one is justified by keeping any of God's commandments.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

What else is it supposed to mean when you say: "you don't suppose God was talking about oxen there, do you?" He was literally talking about oxen.



Bad example. Try again.



True.



No. You're defiled and guilty just like those who do commit murder. Again, you seem to be making my points for me. Those who keep the law in their heart keep it outwardly as well. Christianity doesn't teach that though. Christianity justifies transgressing God's laws. Christianity says that the law is done away with. Christians can profane the Sabbath in their hearts and outwardly as well. Christians can eat whatever they please because the literal law is of no consequence. It only foreshadows spiritual food, or some spiritual principle which they never get around to explaining.

I would simply point out that there's no need to cherry pick, and therefore the Cannibal may continue to eat human beings after he converts to Christianity. If we're consistent in our reasoning, they can kill their next meal as well because no one is justified by keeping any of God's commandments.

You won't really get much argument from me that evangelical Christianity is messed up.

I don't understand why the example I gave is a bad example, or a worse or sillier example than your example of cannibalism being okay.

The problem was never with the law. It is spiritual and good. The problem is with the heart.

You seem to me like a bad doctor or a chiropractor who would say: oh, I see your problem! You are walking all hunched over and crooked. Stand up and walk straight and your pain will be gone, that'll be 50 bucks. Who would pay him? They would say, you quack! The problem is not my symptoms, the problem is something inside and THAT is causing the symptoms. Fix the problem or I won't pay you.

 

[shnarkle]

You won't really get much argument from me that evangelical Christianity is messed up.

I don't understand why the example I gave is a bad example, or a worse or sillier example than your example of cannibalism being okay.

The problem was never with the law. It is spiritual and good. The problem is with the heart.

Try to focus on the actual topic under discussion. This will help the discussion progress. Address the arguments presented. Refute them if at all possible.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Lol....

 

[brakelite]

Does our liberty in Christ have limitations ? Yes. Claiming the following means we can now lawfully eat anything (glass perhaps?)
KJV 1 Corinthians 6
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any....
KJV 1 Corinthians 10
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Makes a mockery of God's design. He has stipulated what is food. Anything that Has said was not to be eaten, is therefore not only unhealthy... It isn't food. Glass can be eaten, but it isn't food. Pork can be eaten. But it isn't food. It's taste... Its ease of accessibility... It's cheapness... Does not make it food. There is no such thing, and there never has been any such thing as unclean food. I challenge anyone to find a scripture reference to unclean food as if a certain item was food but God arbitrarily forbade it from being consumed. No. Good forbade certain unclean animals from being eaten because they weren't food. And why are they not food? Because they are poison. They kill. Maybe slowly, but they kill.
So cannibals can most assuredly be asked to give up their practice on the basis that human beings are not food. Just like swine, oysters, lobsters, mussels, paua,kina, toheroa, and kereru. (Some NZ so called delicacies included there all of which I have in the past eaten and enjoyed... But enlightened now I refuse because as God said, these things shall not be food for you.) Science today totally vindicates God's choices as to what constitutes as a recommended diet as per the Manufacturers instructions.
And yes, it is total hypocricy for a Christian to demand of a native pagan that he should refrain from cannibalism while the Christian later instructs him that all things are lawful.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

This strikes me as ridiculous, but we each have to follow our own conscience and the Spirits leading.

 

[brakelite]

This strikes me as ridiculous, but we each have to follow our own conscience and the Spirits leading.

Yep it would. Giving up our cherished habits and affections are too high a price to pay for many.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Yep it would. Giving up our cherished habits and affections are too high a price to pay for many.

Oh no you don't. I do not cherish and have such great affection for bacon that I refuse to stop eating it. Honestly, its not a fave of mine at all. But if its put before me, I eat it with a clear conscience and thankfulness.

You are preaching the outside of the cup rather than the Spirit. God desires men who worship Him in spirit and truth, not what you preach.

 

[Nancy]

The Talmud specifies that those who transgress this law will die somewhere between the age of 50 and 60 years old. How did they know that eating animal fat would cause health problems, or shorten one's life?

Regardless, this is referring to kosher animals who die naturally, or die as the result of wounds, but also even if they are killed by kosher methods to put a wounded animal out of its misery.

They can be given or sold to gentiles though. So perhaps God is letting them know that only he has the constitution to handle it. Giving unclean animals to the gentile population isn't the same thing though. Presenting an offering to God is not the same as giving God something to eat.





Perhaps. What's your point? What's the spirit of the law?



Yes, God forbids His chosen people from eating fat. Again, what's your point? He also forbids them from eating people due to the dietary laws, but here again, if we take your position, there is no prohibition from eating people now that the dietary laws are done away with. Is that what you meant by spiritual? So you can eat the meat, the guts, the organs, and the fat. It's all for you now.

From my little understanding on this, I must ask, is not the Talmud Oral law, and all written by rabbis after the Torah? What is the difference between the Torah (Hebrew Bible) and the Talmud?

 

[Nancy]

Oh...okay, I thought you meant it was a verse in the bible.

Big difference between the Torah and the Talmud...I do not consider the Talmud a part of the Hebrew books.

 

[shnarkle]

Does our liberty in Christ have limitations ? Yes.

I disagree because the liberty we have in Christ is not the liberty to choose. It has nothing to do with free will, but explicitly with our freedom FROM the bondage of sin.

Claiming the following means we can now lawfully eat anything (glass perhaps?)
KJV 1 Corinthians 6
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any....
KJV 1 Corinthians 10
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Makes a mockery of God's design. He has stipulated what is food. Anything that Has said was not to be eaten, is therefore not only unhealthy... It isn't food. Glass can be eaten, but it isn't food. Pork can be eaten. But it isn't food. It's taste... Its ease of accessibility... It's cheapness... Does not make it food.

Excellent points!

There is no such thing, and there never has been any such thing as unclean food. I challenge anyone to find a scripture reference to unclean food as if a certain item was food but God arbitrarily forbade it from being consumed.

Here's where you've temporarily left the tracks. Food that goes bad or rots is no longer considered clean, and should not be consumed.

No. Good forbade certain unclean animals from being eaten because they weren't food. And why are they not food? Because they are poison. They kill. Maybe slowly, but they kill.
So cannibals can most assuredly be asked to give up their practice on the basis that human beings are not food. Just like swine, oysters, lobsters, mussels, paua,kina, toheroa, and kereru. (Some NZ so called delicacies included there all of which I have in the past eaten and enjoyed... But enlightened now I refuse because as God said, these things shall not be food for you.) Science today totally vindicates God's choices as to what constitutes as a recommended diet as per the Manufacturers instructions.
And yes, it is total hypocricy for a Christian to demand of a native pagan that he should refrain from cannibalism while the Christian later instructs him that all things are lawful.

So true! Well said.

 

[shnarkle]

From my little understanding on this, I must ask, is not the Talmud Oral law, and all written by rabbis after the Torah?

No. This is a common misconception among Christians. If you read the Torah (the first five books of Moses), you will note that there are a number of passages where God says to Moses to speak to the children of Israel, and tell them what he has told him to say to them, but what he has told him to say was never written down. God explicitly told Moses to write some things down, and not to write other things down. What he was told not to write down was to be orally transmitted. Originally, none of it was written down, but it could still be distinguished between the Torah and the Oral law. All of it was given to Moses by God. However, as time progressed, there were additions to the Oral law, and eventually it was inundated with so much additional material, that it was no longer effective at transmitting what God had originally intended.

What is the difference between the Torah (Hebrew Bible) and the Talmud?

The Torah is the written law of God. The Talmud is commentary, but it was also eventually committed to writing when it was becoming apparent that the next genocide could leave no one to transmit the Oral Tradition to the next generation. The rabbis were being systematically exterminated, and decided that they would have to write the oral law down before they were all gone.
Christians have an overwhelming amount of commentary available to them on the bible, but none of it can compare to what you will find in the Talmud, especially the Babylonian Talmud. You can download a copy of it from online. You will find many cases where what some rabbi or Sage from Judaism said long before the gospels were written says the exact same thing. Most of what Jesus says in the gospel accounts can be found in the Talmud. Barring a few notable exceptions, this is also the case with Paul.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

God looks on the heart. You two men can only see the outside of a man and what you preach will help no one.

Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud.
These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.

 

[shnarkle]

This strikes me as ridiculous, but we each have to follow our own conscience and the Spirits leading.

The Spirit does not lead one's own conscience. One's own conscience operates apart from the Spirit.

“In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”Judges 17:6

25In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.Judges 21:25

God had pity on Israel and raised up Judges, who saved Israel from their enemies. As long as the Judge lived, the people served God. But soon after the Judge died, the people would leave God and go back to their old ways.

This was a time of terrible apostasy when “Micah thought it was a sign of God’s favor to him and his idolatrous images, that a Levite should come to his door. (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary)” This was a time of savage national justice for an unspeakably horrible crime, which almost wiped out the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 19-21).

" They’re doing just what they’ve done since I took them out of Egypt-leaving me and serving other gods." (1 Samuel 8:6-8)

This is what is known as a form of godliness. Jesus warned against hypocritical groups who try to have godliness through their own rules and regulations above the commandments of God and setting their own rulers above the Holy Spirit.

It’s not whether you’re obeying yourself or a king, the only thing that matters, is are you obeying God.

 

[shnarkle]

God looks on the heart. You two men can only see the outside of a man and what you preach will help no one.

Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud.
These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.

He's referring to pagan practices. Christ's position:
"However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting" Matthew 17:21

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The Spirit does not lead one's own conscience. One's own conscience operates apart from the Spirit.

[removed] I wish whoever has done this to you would CHOKE on their food so they cannot harm anyone else.