Do These Acts Break Commandments?

[Bible Highlighter]

I appreciate all the time you put in but my point to you comes down to far less than a book. Meaning, we both have full plates I imagine.. lets try to cover a little less per post. You have spent a great deal of timing trying to "teach me" which if you feel the need, is fine. But what above covers anything I don't believe in? Nothing... my life has changed DRAMATICALLY since I came to Yeshua... those that knew me before don't see the old "me" anymore. And I continue to grow like anyone else. So why the extended lesson covering things I already believe in? Time is important to us both, Jason.

Well, I do not know what you believe in. Usually most Christians I encounter believe in one of two false doctrines, which is: "Eternal Security" and or that "Sin Does Not Separate A Believer From God." The denial of the Biblical teaching of "Sinless Perfectionism" is usually (but not always) tied to one those two false doctrines. Many believe Jesus died for your present and future sins that you have not confessed or forsaken yet. But this is wrong because if a believer who believes in one of the two doctrines above tells a crowd of people that they are forgiven of present and future sin in passing (without an explanation that they have to live holy to be a true believer), the crowd of people will automatically think that this type of preacher is telling them that they can live in certain horrible sins and still be saved. In fact, denying Sinless Perfectionism or telling people that they cannot overcome their sin in this life means that one can keep continuing in sin with it being okay with GOD. The notion or idea is that sin does not really need to be forsaken (Which is a denial of the Biblical teaching on repentance - See Matthew 12:41 cf. Jonah 3:6-10). Denying Sinless Perfectionism is the idea that one wants to stay in their sins (Which is what God never wants a person to do --- For God is holy and righteous and good and He never wants anyone to be a slave to their sin). For certain sins (not all sins) can cause one to be separated from GOD.

As for writing a book length post in reply: Well, you didn't need to reply back with a book length reply yourself, but you did, anyways. There is nothing wrong with being exhaustive in one's response; Especially if it can lead a person to the truth and especially if one enjoys discussing the Word of God. Usually when I do not like to see a lengthy reply it is because I believe it not that important of a topic. Maybe you do not think we are talking about a salvation issue here. Perhaps that is why it may not be that important to you. While this may not be the case for you, I believe this topic is VERY important and deserves our full attention (despite it being a lengthy discussion at times) because souls are at stake here.

Often, people would ask Yeshua a question and he would answer with a question. This is a very Hebraic thing to do... it is a tool. In answering with a question, the other person would develop a method through which they could answer their original question by answered the question they got back from Yeshua. You think I didn't answer your question, didn't even address it and then determined I needed more verses to make sure I see things as you do. I didn't need more verses, I already addressed your point. I will do so again in the next part....

Well, again, you did not address my verses on Sinless Perfectionism. I am not obligated to answer your question. Jesus did not answer one of His accusers. But anyways, I will strive to give you an honest answer to your question seeing it is bothering you. Am I perfected? Only God can tell. I believe sin does not control me day to day like most people. Do I stumble on rare occasion? In the past, I have.... yes. But the past does not rule my life. For all I know, God has perfected me today. That is up to Him to decide. I will keep seeking to obey more and more of His commands. By my power? No. By the Lord working in me. Do I seek to obey God for my glory? No. I do not want the attention of men that is fleeting. I want God's attention.

As for the employing of questions: Well, I did not sit down one say and say to myself, "Hmmmm.... I wonder if I can figure out a way to influence people and win friends more." "I know! --- I will ask questions to do so!" No. Sorry. That is not what happened. My asking questions is just a natural way I speak so as to get you to see the truth in God's Word. I could just quote you the verse, but sometimes asking it as a question helps you to seek the Scriptures for yourself so you can do a study on it. I love doing little studies in His Word. In fact, over the years, when talking on Christian forums, somebody would ask me something I wouldn't have a clear answer on, and then I would go and do a deep study on it (And God would lead me to discover some amazing things). It's why I love this kind of thing. So if you do not like questions I cannot help that. It is just the way I speak. It is also something I appreciate from others, as well.

As for you not needing more verses: This is a huge problem for me. If you are not willing to discuss the Word of God (back and forth) on this topic, then there is nothing left to say. For if you refuse to discuss God's Word, you are then just chocking forth your opinion in what you want to say vs. (versus) what God's Word actually says (Which is pointless).

What was my answer? I asked you if you were perfected? Your answer should have been no, and what you have above is how I answered you. Here is what I said...

"I understand your point but... are you incapable of sinning? Are you really taking the position that you are already perfected, made incorruptible? Because if you are, I promise you, I could follow you around for a short time and find sin... I think we strive to be perfect, strive the walk in pure righteousness, but we are not perfected yet, made incorruptible."

Actually, I believe sometimes there are things we may not know. To presume how God sees my walk vs. how I see it would be presumptuous. God knows me better than I know myself. But to be fair, you are ignoring in explaining the verses and points I brought up with Scripture that talks about Sinless Perfectionism.

Also, you are focusing your argument based soley on my life, when my life is not the standard of living. God's Word is the standard of living. From the beginning of Genesis to Revelation we learn that God's people were able to do the impossible with God by faith in Him. To deny this is to deny Scripture. Even in real life, people have done things that was considered at one time to be impossible.

In 1954, Roger Bannister ran a mile in under 4 minutes. Before that time, people thought it was impossible to run a mile in less than 4 minutes. But after that, more people have ran the mile in less than 4 minutes after him. What was once impossible became possible.

You believe it is impossible to stop sinning.
Yet, God's Word clearly says otherwise (Revelation 14:3-5, 1 Peter 4:1, Galatians 5:24, Psalms 119:11, John 5:14, John 8:11, 1 Corinthians 10:13, Matthew 5:48, Matthew 26:41, Ephesians 4:26-27).

Also, in regards to righteous behavior: Jesus says that with God anything is possible (Matthew 19:26).

In other words, I trust God (and His Word) and not you.

I said the same thing you did. You spent all this time posting this really long post and I said the same thing. I made the font bigger in your section above in the places we were saying the same thing. We are NOT perfected yet but we ARE to strive for perfection. I said that... you agree... so why the long note?

Because you have given me the impression that you denied the Biblical teaching on Sinless Perfectionism. I believe you deny it (of which I hope I am wrong).

Again, I thank you for the lesson... I never heard any of that before. Seriously... there are actually three Hebrew words we treat as one but are three levels of sin. Do you want to hear about them?

Do you believe sin can separate a believer from GOD?
Do you believe a saint is only obligated to obey the Commands in the New Testament alone (and not the Old Testament Commands)?
Do you believe in Sinless Perfectionism?
If so, then I would like to hear what you have.
If not, then I will have to politely decline.
God will show me it to me if it is for me to know such a thing.

There is no change in the law, and don't go pulling Hebrews 8 out about the "change" in priesthood. The word should be translated as "transfer" and it is in WEIGHT not one ceasing to exist. Even the Levitical priesthood is called everlasting by God and even if TODAY that doesn't harmonize with our theology, that doesn't mean God was wrong. SIN IS THE BREAKING OF COMMANDMENTS (1 John 3:4) and the law is the list of commandments. Do not steal, do not murder, do not lay with a man as you might a woman. And don't add or take from the Law. Being sinless MEANS he didn't break any commandments Jason... that is what is means. So if he changed a command he sinned because the standard when he walked the earth was the law. If you want to insist the law was done away with... or changed... then it was through his death and resurrection not before. So when he walked, until his death... he did NOT break ANY commandments and one of them says not to add or take from.

First, of all, the word "forever" (and it's related words) does not always mean forever in the Bible. “Forever” can be talking about "forever" here on this Earth (as long as someone lives) or in having a sense of "completeness" or "totality" for a specific thing). For what do you make of the following verses below that say that "forever" (or it's related words) is not forever?

Click on the following "spoiler button."

Spoiler

• In Genesis 13:15 the land of Canaan is given to Israel “forever”.

• The Law is to be a statute “forever” (Exodus 12:24; Exodus 27:21; Exodus 28:43).

• Sodom's fiery judgment is "eternal" (Jude 1:7) until -- God "will restore the fortunes of Sodom" (Ezekiel 16:53-55).

• Israel's "affliction is incurable" (Jeremiah 30:12) until -- the Lord "will restore health" and heal her wounds (Jeremiah 30:17).

• The sin of Samaria "is incurable" (Micah 1:9) until -- Lord "will restore ... the fortunes of Samaria." (Ezekiel 16:53).

• Ammon is to become a "wasteland forever" and "rise no more" (Zephaniah 2:9, Jeremiah 25:27 until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of the Ammonites" (Jeremiah 49:6).

• An Ammonite or Moabite is forbidden to enter the Lord's congregation "forever" until -- the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3):

• Habakkuk tells us of mountains that were "everlasting" until -- they "were shattered" Habakkuk 3:6).

• The Aaronic Priesthood was to be an "everlasting" priesthood (Exodus 40:15), that is-until-it was superceded by the Melchizedek Priesthood (Hebrews 7:14-18).

• Many translations of the Bible inform us that God would dwell in Solomon's Temple "forever" (1 Kings 8:13), until -- the Temple was destroyed.

• The children of Israel were to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant" (Exodus 31:16)-until -- Paul states there remains "another day" of Sabbath rest for the people of God (Hebrews 4:8-9).

• The Law of Moses was to be an "everlasting covenant" (Leviticus 24:8) yet we read in the New Covenant the first was "done away" and "abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:11-13), and God "made the first old" (Hebrews 8:13).

• The fire for Israel's sin offering (of a ram without blemish) is never to be put out. It shall be a "perpetual" until -- Christ, the Lamb of God, dies for our sins.
Hell. We now have a better covenant established on better promises (Leviticus 6:12-13, Hebrews 8:6-13).

• God's waves of wrath roll over Jonah "forever" until--the Lord delivers him from the large fish's belly on the third day (Jonah 2:6-10; Jonah 1:17); Egypt and Elam will "rise no more" (Jeremiah 25:27) until -- the Lord will "restore the fortunes of Egypt" (Ezekiel 29:14) and "restore the fortunes of Elam" (Jeremiah 49:39).

• "Moab is destroyed" (Jeremiah 48:4, Jeremiah 48:42) until--the Lord "will restore the fortunes of Moab" (Jeremiah 48:47).

• Israel's judgment lasts "forever" until -- the Spirit is poured out and God restores it (Isaiah 32:13-15).

• The King James Bible, as well as many others, tells us that a bond slave was to serve his master "forever" (Exodus 21:6), until -- his death.

• “Eternal” (Greek aionia, αιονια) is sometimes used of a limited (not endless) period of time. But the most common use is illustrated in 2 Corinthians 4:18 where it is contrasted with “temporal” and in Philemon 1:15 where it is contrasted with “for a while.”

Here is the source link for list above for the Scriptural examples used on the word "forever":
http://www.apttoteach.org/attjom/index.php

Second, Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed.
The Law of the Old Covenant is made up of about 613 Commands.
These laws were for Israel and not to the Gentiles.
With the exception of the story of Jonah, if the Gentiles wanted to be saved, they would generally become a Jew or an Israelite to be saved.
However, when the New Covenant began with Christ's death, this all changed.
In fact, we see this change of the Law in New Testament Scripture.
The temple veil was torn from top to bottom and the Levite priesthood order is no more. We are not seeking to rebuild the temple so as to sacrifce animals again. Jesus said to turn the other cheek instead of rendering an eye for an eye. Peter was told to eat unclean animals (Which is violation of Old Testament Law). Also, in regards to the Sabbath: Paul says some regard all days a like and others regard one day over another and that we are to be convinced in our own minds. Paul also says we are not to judge in regards to Sabbaths. So the Saturday Sabbath Command from the Old Law is no longer binding or a requirement. We do not have to be circumcised like in the Old Testament. Jesus nailed to the cross those ordinances that were against us. In other words, you could not even keep all of the Old Law and the New Law. For these Laws conflict with each other. But good luck in trying to do so. The Scriptures say we are not under the Law (i.e. the Law of Moses).

As for your confusion on the words "Commands" and "Law":

Yes, while the Bible does use the word "Law" primarily as saying Commands, a Command is the same thing as saying a Law.

But the New Testament does use the word "Law" in a singular sense.

Paul says,
"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." (Romans 7:23).

Please take note that this verse above was said by Paul from his perspective as a Jew before he became a Christian so as to make the point that with Jesus, we can be set free from sin and overcome it (with His help).

Today, we can say there are traffic laws. The word "laws" is plural of the word "law." Traffic Laws are Commands or orders from your state to obey. You can break each of these Laws down into looking at them one at a time. You can look at just one traffic Law (singular). The Bible says in Hebrews 8:10 and Hebrews 10:16 that there are laws (plural). Again, if the Bible describe there are laws (plural), then it is logical to assume that we can focus on just one law (singular) within the whole of the many laws (plural). These laws are also known as Commands. So there is no difference between the word "Law" or "Command." At the heart, they mean the same thing. Yes, the word "Law" is used in the Bible to refer to many Commands, but this is not always the case.

That's great, I hadn't heard any of these things, either.

I am glad I could help to show you that Jesus had power during His Earthly ministry. While this may be true, Christ's Omniscience (i.e. to have all knowledge) was also suppressed during the Incarnation so as to be like a man (limited in knowledge) (Philippians 2:6-9). For Christ was that like figure (type) of Adam (Romans 5:14), and both Adam and Jesus were limited in knowledge as a part of God's design for a certain amount of time.

Jesus said and did everything the Father told him to say and do. Jesus always pleased his Father. So He could be like a man who served God perfectly so as to be our substitute.

Yet, Jesus was not only just a man who was limited in knowledge, He could feel pain, get tired, and get hungry, -- Jesus was also the Son of God (Second person of the Godhead) who was Holy and perfect in everything He did. He quoted a Psalm of David (Psalms 22) not because He was speaking from some human side of Himself. The body was just a shell. For He said so Himself. It was a temple. Jesus was speaking as God but limited in knowledge because His divine attribute of Omniscience was suppressed in the Incarnation. When Christ had achieved His mission, there would have been no reason for Him not to have His Omniscience back in full. This mission was paying the penalty for sin on the cross, then conquering sin and death with his resurrection, then ascending to the Father (After He told Mary to touch Him not) so as to be our mediator and Heavenly High Priest.

A discussion for another thread. Would love to chat about Peter's vision... it had NOTHING to do with food.

Yes, there is spiritual message behind Peter's vision. It is a picture of the of his acceptance to include the Gentiles. But God also meant what He said to Peter literally, too. Peter can now eat unclean foods, too. For according to the New Testament, Paul says we can eat anything we want as long as we give thanks and sanctify it with the Word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:3-5). Again, eating unclean animals was forbidden in the Old Testament Law (See Leviticus 11). So your notion that the Old Law is still binding or a requirement is just not true. The Law has changed (Hebrews 7:12).

Every point you make above there are numberous answers for... but again, another thread and honestly, not a discussion I even want to have with you. I will walk as I believe God is leading me to walk, I have to answer for THAT just as you must give an answer for your own walk. I don't want to convince you about the law, but I will answer honest questions, in another thread. I won't get into an endless debate though... if you WANT to hear, I will share. If you want to teach me, find another student.

I am commanded by God's Word to preach the Word (2 Timothy 4:2). If you do not like what I say according to God's Word, I cannot help that. I am just a messenger. So do not shoot the messenger. But I am not looking to find students. I am looking to find more brothers and sisters to love and to share in the same knowledge of God's Word. I get nothing out of preaching God's Word but to glorify Jesus Christ. I am not looking to Lord over any flock. For it is Jesus who is LORD. For I am nothing and Christ is everything. In fact, I prefer house fellowship (like they had in the early church as shown in the New Testament) where they met in small groups. A more humble setting where all are equal. I am looking to serve them (not just in feeding them the Word).

Like most mainstream Christians, your understanding of the Torah is limited. That isn't a knock, it is just the reality of our culture. I am addressing this point though because you made mine but in your attempt to either teach me or pat yourself on the back (not sure yet which you are trying to do) you seem to gloss over it. I said that he did not keep ALL commandments because not all apply to him just as not all apply to me or you. You said, "If Jesus did any kind of farming, He would have obeyed this law." Agreed, but since he didn't then that commandment(s) doesn't apply to him. That is exactly and all I said... he didn't need to follow the commandments concerning the land because he didn't farm AND he isn't the land. Just as he didn't need to keep commands pertaining to women because he was a man. You agree, but you needed to repeat it to me... why?

There was a lot of Jesus's life that we do not know about. To assume that Jesus did not farm just because he was a carpenter does not mean that he may not have had a farm at one time or a small garden in the backyard. Granted, I am not saying Jesus was a farmer or a gardener. The fact of the matter is we just do not know. To assume that we know all of Jesus's life and say that he was most definitely not a farmer or gardener at any point in His life is simply to make an empty claim about something we cannot possibly know (Because we are not God to know such a thing).

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21:25).

As for the Torah or the five books of Moses:
It no longer is a requirement for the believer today.

If you do not want to listen to me: I would suggest reading the many articles at Grace Community International on this topic. I would recommend starting with their article here:

The Old Covenant and the Law of Moses | Grace Communion International

That person would need to repent and Yeshua would do his work as advocate for us. We strive to be perfect but when we fail, we repent and move on. That is NO WAY suggests we can willfully sin and then go to confession... that would be rebellion. There is a difference in the Hebrew language between unknown or unintentional sin and rebellion. Sin happens, but there is a huge difference in so many ways in Scripture between the man who seeks the righteousness of God and falls short from time to time in his fallen state... and the guy who knows what God wants and goes and does something else deliberately.

But before you are denying that a person cannot stop sinning in this life. It sounded to me like you were against Sinless Perfectionism. Meaning, a person cannot stop stealing or hating, etc.

Again, I HATE HEAVY METAL... but YOU can't hear the words? So because YOU can't hear the words and because the music seems darker to YOU it must be of the Adversary? I, respectfully, question your discernment. You have spent a great deal of time trying to teach me things we already agree with and in some cases, you're trying to teach me things I have already said to you. Here you are using YOUR personal likes and dislikes to judge others. And again... I can't stand that form of music... but we are warned more about wolves in sheeps clothing... people with the Word (or enough of it to appear like us) who stand opposed.

Paul said that... but Paul is not God and though his works are inspired, he often shares his OPINION and though he was inspired to write his opinion, it remains his OPINION. He also said he believed you should remain celebate... but I see you are married. Why the double-standard? Accept Paul's words when it comes to music, but not women?

According to YOUR standards and YOUR tastes. Again, I have no use for heavy metal at all... I actually agree with some of your descriptions... but to take the position that it is evil without spending ANY time with those who write or sing it? You're judging and unto condemnation because you are calling it evil and of the devil which sends the singers and songwriters to hell with the music. I think you have usurped your own authority here.

If Jesus lives in a person, they are going to have some kind of discernment between what is good and what is evil. Anyone who walks away from the things of this world and just follows Jesus alone will see the dark things of this world for what they are. If you can't sense the evil from Heavy Metal music, then that is on you. I would ask the LORD to show you the truth concerning Christian Heavy Metal and how it is not of GOD. If you ask, He will show you for what it is. If you don't care to know, then you will see whatever you want to see.

I am happy your life is better. Feel free not to impose all your understanding on everyone else. We can glean from one another but we should not dictate our views on others. We are all in different places, on different levels of understanding and it would do you well to learn to understand where on the ladder one might be and then go speak to them on that level... or from just ONE rung ahead. This is not a sprint, it is a marathon, a life long marathon run one step at a time.

Shalom.
Ken

Again, God's Word tells me to preach the Word. I used Scripture to show how Christian Heavy Metal was not Biblical. I shown you Scripture to defend my view on Soteriology and how Christians follow the New Covenant Commands and not the Old Covenant Commands. It is only up to you if you want to receive the Word or not. Again, I am just the messenger. So please do not shoot the messenger. Also, what verse says that we cannot sprint or run towards Christ with all we got? Yes, we are in a life long race, but there is nothing wrong with being passionate about following Jesus and preaching the Word of God with fire and intensity (Whereby we would want people to walk uprightly and closer to the LORD).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Before I reply to your post, I wanted to ask you if you're teaching a footloose game with morality.

The term "footloose" is defined as:

"Free to go or travel about; not confined by responsibilities."

See:
the definition of footloose

I was trying to convince you to be more conversative and careful in regards to morality or God's goodness and not more carefree in regards to it. The safer play would be to be more conservative in your morality because if you are wrong in regards to thinking that prostitution, drug use, and witchcraft, etc. are not serious sins that can separate you from GOD, then you are leading yourself and others into a pit of destruction.

This means that your question that asks me if I am playing a footloose game with morality is just a baseless accusation and that you do not truly understand what the word "footloose" actually means.

Do you teach others that wearing shorts is a sin?

No.

Do you see a woman dressed in anything but a very long, dark-toned dress which covers the ankles, and teach her that she is sinning?

No.

Do you teach others that the very act of dancing is impure, lustful, and sinful?

No.

Do you teach others that wearing colored clothing is a sin of pridefulness?

No.

Do you teach others that owning modern appliances is sinful, as you could use the money for the unecessary computers and fancy cars and such to feed the hungry?

No.

If not, why not?

By the Word of God that you ignored in my posts to you.
Also, by having a conscience (or a heart that has not been hardened by sin), a basic knowledge of right and wrong, by having experience within the real world, and by having a relationship with Jesus Christ.

The two ways that I can show you how you are wrong in your view of morality on prostitution, drug use, and witchcraft, etc. is to show you:

(a) The Word of God.
(b) Real world examples (Sort of like the Parables of Jesus).

I know a great many people would say that you are "teaching a foot loose game with morality": why are you dismissing their idea of "morality"?

See the above reasons.

Why is your standard of "morality" superior to theirs?

See the above reasons.

Are you engaging in the sinful lust of pride to suggest their morality is "too much" and yours is "just right"?

No. Their version of morality does not apply. See the above reasons.

Do you think the Amish don't see their moral standards clearly taught in scripture?

Have you seen the Amish make a good case with Scripture and by way of real world examples for their moral beliefs that appear odd or unorthodox to us?

Why not "play it safe" and go dwell in a cave girt with a burlap sack so as to avoid the hellfire surely coming upon the dancers, and the city-dwellers, and the automobile owners, and the prideful color-wearers, and all the sinful short-haired women?

Because looking at the Bible and real world examples tells us that these things would not be what God wants us to do.

I'm asking this question to see if I can go ahead and not have to respond to your use of "morality" in you post. To see if I can go ahead and let the bible define its own morality, instead of you determining that standard for everyone else?

But I showed you Scripture and you just ignored it. I have explained using real world examples of how things like prostitution, and drug use, is not a means of loving your neighbor (Which is of the 2nd Greatest Commandment given to us by GOD) and you again just ignored it.


....

 

[John Hyperspace]

The term "footloose" is defined as:

"Free to go or travel about; not confined by responsibilities."

See:
the definition of footloose

I was trying to convince you to be more conversative and careful in regards to morality or God's goodness and not more carefree in regards to it. The safer play would be to be more conservative in your morality because if you are wrong in regards to thinking that prostitution, drug use, and witchcraft, etc. are not serious sins that can separate you from GOD, then you are leading yourself and others into a pit of destruction.

Not quite; I'm not leading anyone anywhere when I state the truth: that I don't see any specific prohibition against the acts; then again, if these things aren't sin, you could be causing your brother to stumble in his faith (if he is engaging in these and causing doubt in his salvation) leading him and yourself into the pit of destruction (him by way of stumbling, you by way of being the direct cause of his stumbling). I believe caution in pronouncments of "sinner" is better than no caution, since no caution can affect the faith of others; while caution can only put the judgment into God's hands, and, not mine.

This means that your question that asks me if I am playing a footloose game with morality is just a baseless accusation and that you do not truly understand what the word "footloose" actually means.

If my use is baseless, then so is yours.

No.



No.



No.



No.



No.

I see. And so people that would be answering those questions "Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes." would be saying you're playing a footloose game with morality; as you are saying about me. If you are free to reject their moral standard; I am free to reject yours.

By the Word of God that you ignored in my posts to you.

I am going to reply to your post; but I was first asking this question because a lot of your post contained the unjustified "It's my morality" support; which support I reject for the same reason you reject the morality of others.

Also, by having a conscience (or a heart that has not been hardened by sin), a basic knowledge of right and wrong, by having experience within the real world, and by having a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Conscience is not a factor in any of the listed actions. It is only a factor if you believe they are immoral.

No. Their version of morality does not apply. See the above reasons.

Then neither does yours. See above reasons.

Have you seen the Amish make a good case with Scripture and by way of real world examples for their moral beliefs that appear odd or unorthodox to us?

Yes, I have seen then make cases just as good as yours.

But I showed you Scripture and you just ignored it. I have explained using real world examples of how things like prostitution, and drug use, is not a means of loving your neighbor (Which is of the 2nd Greatest Commandment given to us by GOD) and you again just ignored it.

I didn't ignore it, I was holding off on a full reply (like you did with me) until I determined if I should accept your moral standard as the moral standard for everyone. I have decided to reject it in light of your own arguments above.

Drug use, tattoos, etc. have nothing to do with "loving your neighbor": just as sitting on your porch, or, playing a musical instrument in your living room, or, watching tv, has nothing to do with "loving your neighbor": loving you neighbor means, to work no ill toward your neighbor; and to help him when in need. It has nothing to do with curtailing actions. Fornication and prostitution? Well, I'll skip those two on ground that I don't employ sarcasm. But neither works "ill will" toward your neighbor, or, anyone at all.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not quite; I'm not leading anyone anywhere when I state the truth: that I don't see any specific prohibition againstthe acts; then again, if these things aren't sin, you could be causing your brother to stumble in his faith (if he is engaging in these and causing doubt in his salvation) leading him and yourself into the pit of destruction (him by way of stumbling, you by way of being the direct cause of his stumbling). I believe caution in pronouncments of "sinner" is better than no caution, since no caution can affect the faith of others; while caution can only put the judgment into God's hands, and, not mine.


If my use is baseless, then so is yours.



I see. And so people that would be answering those questions "Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes." would be saying you're playing a footloose game with morality; as you are saying about me. If you are free to reject their moral standard; I am free to reject yours.



I am going to reply to your post; but I was first asking this question because a lot of your post contained the unjustified "It's my morality" support; which support I reject for the same reason you reject the morality of others.



Conscience is not a factor in any of the listed actions. It is only a factor if you believe they are immoral.



Then neither does yours. See above reasons.



Yes, I have seen then make cases just as good as yours.



I didn't ignore it, I was holding off on a full reply (like you did with me) until I determined if I should accept your moral standard as the moral standard for everyone. I have decided to reject it in light of your own arguments above.

Drug use, tattoos, etc. have nothing to do with "loving your neighbor": just as sitting on your porch, or, playing a musical instrument in your living room, or, watching tv, has nothing to do with "loving your neighbor": loving you neighbor means, to work no ill toward your neighbor; and to help him when in need. It has nothing to do with curtailing actions. Fornication and prostitution? Well, I'll skip those two on ground that I don't employ sarcasm. But neither works "ill will" toward your neighbor, or, anyone at all.

First, the problem again with your stand on morality here is that the sins you mentioned are understood as being destructive and bad by even unbelievers.
They are so common and basic in being understood as being bad that even a child can understand the horrible nature of them easily. Surely, if some particular action (i.e. sin) is destructive to a people it is not of God and it is a grevious sin. The case you are trying to make is like a self professing Christian serial killer trying to justify murder as being okay because he eliminates bad guys only or a self professing Christian robin hood trying to justify his stealing because he takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Each of these self professing anti-moral Christians would no doubt twist verses around like you are doing to justify their own respective sins and create their own sense of morality that is outside of God's good plan. The serious sins you mentioned as not being bad (like fornication, prostitution, drug use, etc.) would be more in line with what a sociopath would say.

Here is the definition at Dictionary.com

Sociopath: (Noun):

a person with a psychopathic personality... who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

See:
the definition of sociopath

Second, other Christians and myself have provided verses for you to let you know that the list of sins you mentioned are in fact sins according to the Bible (See again my list of verses to you here) but you just ignored them; Yet, you have not chosen to talk about these verses with me. In fact, you tried to compare these common basic sins as being compared to dress length size, and the like which is even more insulting (When most people know that dress length size and the like does not violate God's Word or any moral code of not loving your neighbor). It is like you are mocking the faith and you just don't believe what God's Word is plainly saying.

Three, your stand on morality violates how the Bible defines the characteristics of love.

4 "Love suffers long, and is kind; love envies not; love vaunts not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Does not behave itself rudely, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, keeps no record of evil;
6 Rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;
7 Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Doing drugs, involving your self in prostitution, fornication, gambling, witchcraft, and tattoos, etc. is all about seeking your own thing and the pleasure therein. Not to mention drugs can cause you to be easily addicted to them whereby you will not be much use to loving anyone because all you want is your drug fix. Prostitution is the spread of sexual disease and is not loving to the person you are paying money to have sex with. Sex is a covenant or connection made between two people. Jesus said that the Biblical example of a union between a man and woman was in the Garden. Divorce was only allowed because of the hardness of men's hearts. Looking upon a woman in lust even can cause one to be cast into hell fire according to Matthew 5:28-30. Yet, you want to try and justify sex outside of marriage and say prostitution is okay? Really? When you sleep around with others, you spread sexual disease. This is not being loving to your neighbor. When you gamble, you are not being loving towards others who have lost their money at that same casino. Your winnings are on the backs of those who have lost or who have put themselves into debt to keep their addiction of gambling going. Making people to lose their money and supporting them to go into debt and even addiction to gambling is not being loving towards them. You are supporting their sickness. You are benefiting while they suffer. That is not being loving towards them. Witchcraft. I should not even have to tell you that this is evil and wrong and of the devil. It's just common and basic sense. But when you involve yourself in the dark arts, you are seeking a means of power outside of God and His Word. Nothing good ever comes in helping your neighbor if you dabble in witchcraft because it is false spirituality that leads a person into self and or satanism. God's Word condemns sorcery or witchcraft in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.



...

 

[John Hyperspace]

First, the problem again with your stand on morality here is that the sins you mentioned are understood as being destructive and bad by even unbelievers.
They are so common and basic in being understood as being bad that even a child can understand the horrible nature of them easily.

None of the actions on the list are common and basic as understood as being bad. If you're able to find an unbeliever who agrees with you that two people having relations outside of marriage is "destructive and bad", or that tattooes are "destructive and bad" or, gambling, dancing, drug use, etc. are "destructive and bad" feel free to have them add their comment to the thread. Until then, I'm not trying to offend; but everything you're saying is baseless self-righteous self-defined morality.

Also, I was asking about whether or not "drug use" was a sin; not whether or not it could become destructive to the body. Eating chocolate in excess can be destructive; so is eating chocolate a "breaking of a commandment"? No.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

None of the actions on the list are common and basic as understood as being bad.

If you're able to find an unbeliever who agrees with you that two people having relations outside of marriage is "destructive and bad", or that tattooes are "destructive and bad" or, gambling, dancing, drug use, etc. are "destructive and bad" feel free to have them add their comment to the thread. Until then, I'm not trying to offend; but everything you're saying is baseless self-righteous self-defined morality.

Also, I was asking about whether or not "drug use" was a sin; not whether or not it could become destructive to the body. Eating chocolate in excess can be destructive; so is eating chocolate a "breaking of a commandment"? No.

Not all of the immoral things you listed are considered as immoral by unbelievers (of course). Then again, there is a moral decline here in America, too. Not that it will effect your stand on certain immoral things, Christians (Especially Evangelicals) have a higher moral standard than atheists or agnostics (Which would include fornication, and gambling)).





Source:
https://www.barna.com/research/morality-continues-to-decay/


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

http://www.barna.com/research/plurality-of-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana/


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Also, the actual real practice of witchcraft is generally viewed unfavorably by most Americans.

Witchcraft Viewed Unfavorably by Most Americans | Women of Grace


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As for Christians and tattoos:
Please read this article here on learning about the dark side of tattoos.

The Dark Side of Tattoos


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"All a person’s ways seem pure to them, but motives are weighed by the LORD." (Proverbs 16:2).

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12).

"Be not wise in your own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil"
(Proverbs 3:7).

3 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, ..." (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

"And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding." (Job 28:28).

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Matthew 16:24).

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." (Romans 12:1).

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man" (Ecclesiastes 12:13).


....

 

[Ken Rank]

Well, I do not know what you believe in. Usually most Christians I encounter believe in one of two false doctrines, which is: "Eternal Security" and or that "Sin Does Not Separate A Believer From God." The denial of the Biblical teaching of "Sinless Perfectionism" is usually (but not always) tied to one those two false doctrines. Many believe Jesus died for your present and future sins that you have not confessed or forsaken yet. But this is wrong because if a believer who believes in one of the two doctrines above tells a crowd of people that they are forgiven of present and future sin in passing (without an explanation that they have to live holy to be a true believer), the crowd of people will automatically think that this type of preacher is telling them that they can live in certain horrible sins and still be saved.

I simply don't have the time today to address the entire post and after reading through, I probably won't. Not only are there places where I not only vehemently disagree, there are places, respectfully, that are just flat out wrong and that reveal... you have NO IDEA what I believe AND WHY. That would help, brother, before passing judgement and telling me how wrong I am. You are a classic example of somebody who reads in one language and interprets from a modern and western perspective. The idea that Jesus' Jewishness might actually effect context doesn't even come to mind. You define words as they are known today, and not as they were used when they were first chosen as words to use in translation. I would give 5-6 examples but that would just cause a long return from you that I don't desire to reply to. Not because I can't but because you know you are right and are not open to any new idea. You even told me that I confuse the words commands and law. You claim my idea of any law being for today as wrong, but then don't ask for clarify before passing judgement. You are not seeking new information or deeper understanding... you believe what you believe and have closed out to anything else. So, I won't waste either of our time.

As for the above section I clipped from you... the last sentence was very well put. When I was seeking Christ over 2 decades ago... one of the people who helped me make certain connections was drunk and as soon as our conversation ended, was headed to the first woman who would say yes to his desire to take them home. I even asked him about it and he said, "That's the best part Ken... because Jesus died for all my sins now and forever, I can do whatever I want and am still forgiven." I knew nothing at the time and still knew that couldn't be right. But like I said, that was a long time ago.

It has been nice talking to you. Be blessed.
Ken

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I simply don't have the time today to address the entire post and after reading through, I probably won't. Not only are there places where I not only vehemently disagree, there are places, respectfully, that are just flat out wrong and that reveal... you have NO IDEA what I believe AND WHY. That would help, brother, before passing judgement and telling me how wrong I am. You are a classic example of somebody who reads in one language and interprets from a modern and western perspective. The idea that Jesus' Jewishness might actually effect context doesn't even come to mind. You define words as they are known today, and not as they were used when they were first chosen as words to use in translation. I would give 5-6 examples but that would just cause a long return from you that I don't desire to reply to. Not because I can't but because you know you are right and are not open to any new idea. You even told me that I confuse the words commands and law. You claim my idea of any law being for today as wrong, but then don't ask for clarify before passing judgement. You are not seeking new information or deeper understanding... you believe what you believe and have closed out to anything else. So, I won't waste either of our time.

As for the above section I clipped from you... the last sentence was very well put. When I was seeking Christ over 2 decades ago... one of the people who helped me make certain connections was drunk and as soon as our conversation ended, was headed to the first woman who would say yes to his desire to take them home. I even asked him about it and he said, "That's the best part Ken... because Jesus died for all my sins now and forever, I can do whatever I want and am still forgiven." I knew nothing at the time and still knew that couldn't be right. But like I said, that was a long time ago.

It has been nice talking to you. Be blessed.
Ken

Well, nowhere did I say that you believed in Eternal Security or that Sin Cannot Separate A Believer From GOD. I am just telling you that is the common belief among self professing Christians (And they usually deny Sinless Perfectionism - as a result of these beliefs). Also, by other things you said, you gave me the impression that you MAY believe as they do. Granted, I said in the beginning of my last post to you that I do not know what you believe. So there are no judgments on this towards you. I merely spoke in such a way against Eternal Security and or against the idea that Sin Cannot Separate A Believer From GOD just in the event that you did believe it somehow. Granted, now you have come clean and you are saying that a believer cannot sin and still be saved. This is a good thing. However, this confusion should not have happened in the first place. Believers have to speak in such a way so as to make sure that we are not preaching a doctrine of immorality as others do. But the one problem we disagree on is which Covenant to follow. You think we are obligated by GOD to still to follow the Old Covenant to some capacity (When this is not so). This puts you into the other end of the spectrum of going back to the Old Law (Trying to partially justify yourself by something that no longer applies anymore). For Jesus said, no man can put new wine into old wine skins.

Another thing I would like to ask you. Does it bother you that a poster here is trying to justify certain sins like prostitution, fornication, gambling, witchcraft, and drug use? For me, it is downright disgusting, wrong, and mind boggling. Especially when others here are treating it as no big deal, as well.


...

 

[YouAreAwesome]

As for Christians and tattoos:
Please read this article here on learning about the dark side of tattoos.

The Dark Side of Tattoos


...

This is the conclusion of the article:
In spite of the current interest in tattoos even in the church, all research points to one conclusion: The root of tattooing never changes; it is, and always has been, a pagan spiritual activity.

Nope. The root of the tattoo one receives is whatever the motive is for getting a tattoo irrespective of previous motives. It's 1 Corinthians 10:31 "...whatever you do, do for the glory of God".

 

[Ken Rank]

Well, nowhere did I say that you believed in Eternal Security or that Sin Cannot Separate A Believer From GOD. I am just telling you that is the common belief among self professing Christians (And they usually deny Sinless Perfectionism - as a result of these beliefs). Also, by other things you said, you gave me the impression that you MAY believe as they do. Granted, I said in the beginning of my last post to you that I do not know what you believe. So there are no judgments on this towards you. I merely spoke in such a way against Eternal Security and or against the idea that Sin Cannot Separate A Believer From GOD just in the event that you did believe it somehow. Granted, now you have come clean and you are saying that a believer cannot sin and still be saved. This is a good thing. However, this confusion should not have happened in the first place. Believers have to speak in such a way so as to make sure that we are not preaching a doctrine of immorality as others do. But the one problem we disagree on is which Covenant to follow. You think we are obligated by GOD to still to follow the Old Covenant to some capacity (When this is not so). This puts you into the other end of the spectrum of going back to the Old Law (Trying to partially justify yourself by something that no longer applies anymore). For Jesus said, no man can put new wine into old wine skins.

Another thing I would like to ask you. Does it bother you that a poster here is trying to justify certain sins like prostitution, fornication, gambling, witchcraft, and drug use? For me, it is downright disgusting, wrong, and mind boggling. Especially when others here are treating it as no big deal, as well.


...

I hadn't read everyone else's posts. Sin is sin, God does not change... so if somebody on here is attempting to justify the acts you mention, he/she would be in error. If all they are doing is saying that there are people mired in those deeds who might belong to God (but don't know it YET) and when they come to know Him they will leave those acts, they would be correct. But again, I didn't read any other post, at least none that fits that description.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is the conclusion of the article:
In spite of the current interest in tattoos even in the church, all research points to one conclusion: The root of tattooing never changes; it is, and always has been, a pagan spiritual activity.

Nope. The root of the tattoo one receives is whatever the motive is for getting a tattoo irrespective of previous motives. It's 1 Corinthians 10:31 "...whatever you do, do for the glory of God".

No. A person can murder only bad guys and claim it in the name of justice for GOD, but they would be outside of the Lord's will. A person can be a robin hood for GOD and steal from the rich so as to give to the poor. Yet, again, they would be outside of God's will because they are bringing forth their own sense of justice. In other words, an action is wrong if one is breaking God's Commandments. The Old Testament condemns tattoos. Also, you are defiling your body when you get tattoos, as well. The ink is not natural to your skin. If the needle is not clean, you can get diseases and or horrible infections. Sometimes a person's skin cannot even handle the ink properly. God's Word says if we defile our temple, He will destroy us. Also, God's Word says we are to avoid having any appearance of evil. Some people look bad or evil when they over do it with tattoos.

....

 

[YouAreAwesome]

A person can murder only bad guys and claim it in the name of justice for GOD, but they would be outside of the Lord's will.

Numbers 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

In other words, an action is wrong if one is breaking God's Commandments.

Thou shalt not lie and 1 Kings 22:22 are a pretty good example of how this thinking is incongruent with the bible.

Also, you are defiling your body when you get tattoos, as well. The ink is not natural to your skin. If the needle is not clean, you can get diseases and or horrible infections. Sometimes a person's skin cannot even handle the ink properly. God's Word says if we defile our temple, He will destroy us.

So you are saying God will destroy anyone with a tattoo?

God's Word says we are to avoid having any appearance of evil. Some people look bad or evil when they over do it with tattoos.

Better not shave your head and grow a goatee then, might look like a biker.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Numbers 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

How did that get in the Bible?
Really? You think that I am unaware of how God used the nation of Israel as an arm of justice on pagan nations? The self proclaiming liberal Christian who even has a basic knowledge of the Bible even knows about that.

Believers today are not a nation like Israel was back in the day. Today, under the New Covenant, God's people are not commanded directly by GOD to attack pagan nations that are against God's good purposes (like in the Old Testament). Jesus told us to turn the other cheek if we are struck. Jesus said we are to pray, love, and do good towards our enemies. We are not to render evil for evil. Jesus says he that lives by the sword will die by the sword. Paul says the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.

In fact, even in the Old Covenant, if you decided to just kill somebody for no good reason, it would be considered as murder. God's people only attacked or destroyed others in the Old Testament when God told them to do so. There were also capital punishments in the Old Law, as well (As you pointed out with the verse you quoted).

Thou shalt not lie and 1 Kings 22:22 are a pretty good example of how this thinking is incongruent with the bible.

So you are saying the Bible has contradictions in it?
Are you saying the Bible is flawed?
If that is the case, then what makes you trust the rest of it?
For me it is the Holy Bible whereby it is perfect and divine and it is not the holey bible whereby it has holes or flaws within it's message.
For me it is an all or nothing package.
We cannot cherry pick which parts we like and don't like.

Anyways, 1 Kings 22:22 is GOD giving permission to a demon to do what it already does for the greater purpose of His ultimate good plan for mankind. The false prophets are already lying and have chosen their path. The evil spirit has also chosen it's path. GOD is simply using the evil that is already in existence for His greater good. GOD is not condoning the actions of evil of these beings. They will still be judged for their doing evil at the Judgment. For GOD allowing something to happen is not the same as GOD doing that thing Himself and or in Him approving of such said evil. GOD did not make anyone to lie here.

Now, there are some Christians who think that God approved of Rahab in lying.

However, this is wrong.

Rahab did not break the 9th Commandment and lie. She was using the art of war in protecting the interests of God's people. For she did not lie to protect herself or to cover up another sin or anything of that nature.

For in war time or in protecting your loved ones or God's people, a person can use the art of war to defend that which is good. This sometimes unfortunately involves deceiving and or eliminating your enemy; However, these things are not done out of selfish ambition, but they are done in order to preserve innocent lives or to protect the common good.

For the Hebrew midwives had lied to the Pharoah's servants to protect the innocent (Exodus 1).

And King David pretended he was crazy when he was not crazy in front of the enemy king of Gath named "Achish" (1 Samuel 21:10-15).

Also, Elisha deceived the enemy when they were blinded by lying about where he was taking them. (2 Kings 6:19)

In addition in Joshua 8:
Joshua himself went in battle against the city of Ai, they pretended that they were being defeated and they retreated. They weren’t being defeated—it was a trap. The Israelites deceived them.

Please take note that God told Joshua to lay an ambush for the army at Ai. If you were to read the chapter, this ambush involved deception. In other words, God was telling Joshua to deceive their enemies as a part of the art of war.

However, if a certain spirit was telling Joshua to lie so as to cover up a sin and or his own embarrassment or shame about something, then that would be a wrong spirit who was trying to make Joshua break the 9th Commandment

So you are saying God will destroy anyone with a tattoo?

Here are just a few images of people with tattoos.

Tattoo Image #1
Tattoo Image #2
Tattoo Image #3
Tattoo Image #4
Tattoo Image #5
Tattoo Image #6
Tattoo Image #7

Are you made in the image of God?
Yes, or no?
Are you not defiling that image if you change it in some way with permanent tattoos?
Is not the body the temple?
Does not ink defile flesh?
Is ink natural for the flesh?
Is ink good for the flesh?
Would you draw paintings or graffiti messages on God's holy temple up in Heaven? Now, why would you do so with your temple (Which God would consider to be holy)?

Anyways, can GOD forgive a person who has a tattoo? Yes. If they repent of such a sin. But GOD does not want us to be like the world and to imitate it. The Old Testament condemns tattoos. It would be hard to imagine GOD changing His mind on this kind of thing. In fact, we know that GOD has not changed His mind on this. For one, there is no new command in the New Covenant giving us a liberty to partake in tattoos. Two, we are told not to defile our temples and we are told not to have any appearance of evil. People with tattoos can come across as looking like they are a part of some criminal street gang, etc.; And messing with your flesh by putting a whole bunch of permanent ink all over it can easily be defined as defiling it. Why take the chance in being wrong? Is it really worth it to do our own thing? Cannot one take pride in their tattoos? What does James 4:6 say? Does denying yourself and picking up your cross, and following Jesus mean to get a tattoo? Or would you be more in line with imitating the world?

Better not shave your head and grow a goatee then, might look like a biker.

Just because somebody is bald and has a goatee does not automatically mean people are going to associate that person with being a part of some criminal street gang. The clothes, the attitude, and their tattoos is what would give us this impression in certain cases.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I hadn't read everyone else's posts. Sin is sin, God does not change... so if somebody on here is attempting to justify the acts you mention, he/she would be in error. If all they are doing is saying that there are people mired in those deeds who might belong to God (but don't know it YET) and when they come to know Him they will leave those acts, they would be correct. But again, I didn't read any other post, at least none that fits that description.

John Hyperspace is saying that the sins like fornication, prostitution, drug use, witchcraft, tattoos, and gambling may not be serious sins to GOD.

I have a BIG problem with this because the Bible does clearly condemn these types of sins. Granted, one shouldn't even need a Bible to know that these things are wrong (even). It's basic morality. But if somebody needs to be hit over the head with the fact that these are wrong, the Bible is available for them for that to happen.


...

 

[Ken Rank]

John Hyperspace is saying that the sins like fornication, prostitution, drug use, witchcraft, tattoos, and gambling may not be serious sins to GOD.

If @John Hyperspace is saying that, he can clarify. We tend to categorize sin based on our experiences with it. For example... a heterosexual male might be appalled by the idea of homosexuality and elevate that sin over his own gluttony. I have seen this so many times... a man who drinks to excess or who weighs 100 pounds more than he should sitting around trying to pull the plank out of everyone else's eyes.

In Hebrew, there are three words that WE treat the same... we see them all as "sin" and then we begin to categorize based on our culture, time, and so forth. The three words are:

Chata'ah - (sin) most lexicons define this as "missing the mark" but few if any give the full picture. Chata'ah is an archer (to give this a picture) who DESIRES to ALWAYS hit the target but because he is in a fallen state, he simply misses from time to time. So this is unintentional or unknown sin.

Avon - (iniquity or transgression) same archer same intent BUT.... he gets caught up in an emotion and turns at aims at another target for a time. When he comes to his senses, he turns back to the proper target.

Pesha - (rebellion) simply put, intentional sin. This "archer" knows the proper target (the righteousness of God) and deliberately aims elsewhere.

If God is revealing a truth and some don't see it YET... they are not in rebellion (pesha) they are in sin (chata'ah) because them not adhering to that truth is not intentional. If God is revealing a truth and we hear it and don't do it... then is becomes pesha.

This is how we have to categorize sin. Taking part in witchcraft can be sin but not rebellion. If this person claims to be a Christians and sees where this is against God's will and they do it anyway, then it is rebellion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If @John Hyperspace is saying that, he can clarify. We tend to categorize sin based on our experiences with it. For example... a heterosexual male might be appalled by the idea of homosexuality and elevate that sin over his own gluttony. I have seen this so many times... a man who drinks to excess or who weighs 100 pounds more than he should sitting around trying to pull the plank out of everyone else's eyes.

In Hebrew, there are three words that WE treat the same... we see them all as "sin" and then we begin to categorize based on our culture, time, and so forth. The three words are:

Chata'ah - (sin) most lexicons define this as "missing the mark" but few if any give the full picture. Chata'ah is an archer (to give this a picture) who DESIRES to ALWAYS hit the target but because he is in a fallen state, he simply misses from time to time. So this is unintentional or unknown sin.

Avon - (iniquity or transgression) same archer same intent BUT.... he gets caught up in an emotion and turns at aims at another target for a time. When he comes to his senses, he turns back to the proper target.

Pesha - (rebellion) simply put, intentional sin. This "archer" knows the proper target (the righteousness of God) and deliberately aims elsewhere.

If God is revealing a truth and some don't see it YET... they are not in rebellion (pesha) they are in sin (chata'ah) because them not adhering to that truth is not intentional. If God is revealing a truth and we hear it and don't do it... then is becomes pesha.

This is how we have to categorize sin. Taking part in witchcraft can be sin but not rebellion. If this person claims to be a Christians and sees where this is against God's will and they do it anyway, then it is rebellion.

Sin is sin. One wrong doing (or sin) does not undo another sin (if that is what you are suggesting). Sins like fornication, prostitution, drug use, and witchcraft are clearly condemned in the Bible. It is not wrong to correct others by the Word of God for their thinking that certain sins are not wrong. They are in error.

As for hypocritical judgment: Are you implying that I am sinning because I am pointing another person's error? Paul judged the Corinthian church for allowing a man who committed sexual immorality to abide within their fellowship. Paul said not to keep company with fornicators. So Paul had a right to correct sin. Just as you and I can correct others if they sin. In other words, correcting those who sin does not automatically mean that the corrector is in sin themselves.

As for sins of ignorance under the New Covenant: I believe sins of ignorance only applies to sins that do not lead unto the second death (like not being baptized (1 Peter 3:21), or causing divisions within the body (1 Corinthians 3), or hidden or secret faults (Psalms 19:12)). A person cannot murder others (and be ignorant of murder) and still be saved. 1 John 3:15 says no murderers have eternal life abiding within them. Revelation 21:8 says all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire. So there are certain sins (whether one is ignorant or aware) that will cause them to die spiritually if they commit them (Regardless of whether they believe Jesus is their Savior or not).

Side Note:

Oh, and yes. John Hyperspace clearly told me that prostitution, fornication, drug use, and witchcraft may not be clearly wrong. He said he needed a specific command telling him that these sins were wrong. I gave him Scripture that told him that these sins were wrong, but he just ignored them.


...