The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Gay Rights (Theologically Speaking)

I think George MacDonald was right to argue that our deep senses of morality and love should lead us to at least re-examine our understandings of Scripture. But I fear that when one’s interpretation of Scripture is questioned, the easiest justification for not engaging the diverse and challenging texts at issue, is to simply accuse challengers of being dishonest, resisting God’s Word as authoritative, or just carnally seeking to confirm their own opinion.

On Jesus’ view of Torah, I find Zondervan’s “Five View on Law & Gospel” helpfully develops the issues. Of the five options debated, my own bias is that N.T. scholar Doug Moo’s view offers the best fit with Scripture, calling it “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View.” I commend this volume to those willing to challenge their own current perceptions.

Also Kelly, I don’t think it’s that people don’t want to acknowledge the authority of God’s word. The question is of Hermenuetics - what does God’s word mean is where the difference lies.

Using the text to confirm one’s opinion is something everyone does - no one’s exempt. The reason is because we’re all trying to understand the text. How far one goes is a matter of spectrum. What if you found out you were wrong about half your beliefs, would you say you were MERELY trying to force the bible to say what you thought it said or would you say you simply lacked understanding and made errors. I think we’re all a mix - we do both.

I reject the calvinist rendering of Romans 9, because I read it differently then they do. They can easily say that I’m trying to force my opinion into it. I can say the same about them. We need to discuss these issues and realize most of us here do take God’s word as authoritative. But we don’t all agree what God’s word is saying on every detail. Yes we all see Universalism in the text. But do we believe that we must all restrain from eating pork? No. Most of us don’t. If you do, then we don’t condemn or judge you. I’m only making the point that many issues are complex, not simple.

God Bless,

Gene

I find all kinds of ambiguity in scripture. So, does that make pedophilia okay?

I always assumed God was controlling the bloodline in view of the ultimate need to bring a “man” to the cross. I have assumed that the Sons of God corrupted this bloodline, resulting in the judgment of the flood. But evidently one of Noah’s son’s wives was also corrupt - otherwise why was Goliath so weird?

Whacky. I know. Minor-league stuff too.

Let’s get back to the Majors…

Actually, Gentiles were never bound by The Law, but instead showed the work of the law written on their hearts. If all your shirts are a polyester-cotton blend, and this produces the work of the law in you, then so be it - the law has done its work.

The work of the law is death - in the spiritual sense. Obviously, there are moral codes that served a purpose for the tribes, and obviously there are commands that serve as types, showing the character of God. However, when it comes to righteousness before God, the law can’t make us righteous.

Paul uses the conscience, not the law, when addressing the depravity of the Gentiles, because they were never bound by it. In both cases, it is the work of the law - the spiritual purpose - to show us when we are wrong. As Gentiles, our conscience bears testimony, showing that our thoughts are in conflict - either accusing or excusing us in judgment.
This conflict in the conscience is what I was writing about earlier. You even showed evidence of it when you claimed, a few posts earlier, that two wrongs make a right:

Allan, you are clearly making excuses. This means that your thoughts are in conflict. This is why I say, “why not… ?” Why not just let the old man die - change your mind (repent) from your current view - a mindset that seeks to justify sin and call something “holy” when it isn’t - to a new view that agrees with God, as expressed in his written law. In other words, let’s bring our worldly, Gentile thoughts into alignment with the character of God as revealed to his chosen people. Why not?

This means that we have to admit we are wrong - and admitting we are wrong doesn’t sit well with self-righteousness. But in the admitting, we are letting the old man die and are resurrected to a new life with a gift of righteousness, freely given to us. In the new life, we own victory by faith - a victory that is from the risen Christ… even if we don’t see that victory at the present time. In the new life, the work of the law has no power - because we have already died to it. So, as we grow in Christ, shouldn’t we be able to, more and more, have no conflict of thoughts in our conscience when someone or something claims, “you are wrong”. Shouldn’t we be able to say, more and more, “I agree - I am wrong”? Shouldn’t we be able to stop making excuses, trying to cover our sins?

What is the first thing Adam and Eve did when they got their shiny new consciences? They covered themselves with fig leaves. God doesn’t think that is adequate - He gave them Lambskin.

All I have been saying in these posts is this: whether it is adultery, homosexuality or a poorly chosen disco outfit, let’s throw off our earth-suits and put on Lambskin.

Hallelujah - Thank God I’m wrong and He’s right!! Why should I fight it? Only a dead man (or a baby) fights the accusation, because only a dead man (or a baby) has to prove his own righteousness.

I have loved you - I told you the truth, even though you, buddyb4 and pilgrim may hate me for it. No one wants to be hated. I understand how you feel ! Homosexuals are not the only people who struggle with temptations too powerful for them. I know that the Christian church is often (very often) unloving toward those who aren’t perfect. I have my own struggles Allan, but I claim my victory in Christ. If I were to change my mind and agree (repent and confess) with you, I would have unity with you, but I wouldn’t need victory in Christ.

This is a serious question, and the answer sheds light on this whole issue. At what age does a child becomes a consensual adult? And what constitutes inappropriate sexual behavior? Can a father hug his daughter? I don’t recall he Bible saying much on this important matter. If anything, it could be used to support a young marital age, along with the notion that the daughter is first the father’s property, and then the husband’s.

Here’s what I do know: Were I a child, I would not want to be sexually exploited by a predatory adult. This is the law of love in action, and sets the stage for everything that follows. Legislators now ask scientists for factual information about rates of maturation, harmful effects of childhood sexual experiences, and so on. Armed with the best available sociological, physiological and psychological data, legislators then devise pragmatic, enforceable rules to govern the situation as best as is humanly possible. In other words, when it comes to this question, the answers are not as easy as you might expect.

I would argue the same is true of homosexuality. When does homosexual behavior become sinful? A shared joke? A hug? A kiss? Is promiscuous (even predatory) gay pride the moral equivalent to a quiet, faithful, monogamous homosexual relationship? How many pages of law must you write to answer this fully? Weren’t the Pharisees obsessed with precisely this moral quest? For me, the question is simply, “If I were gay, how would I like to be treated?” Then I must go and do likewise. From a legal point of view, our law makers need to look at the sociology, genetics, health implications and so on surrounding the issue and come up with policies that create the greatest good for the most people. It will not be easy.

Surely I must love my enemy even if he has a whacky bloodline. Isn’t this what Christ taught? You cannot dodge the problem. The Bible’s teaching on how to treat your enemies is far from unambiguous. If it is unclear when it comes to violent acts, perhaps it is unclear about sexual acts also.

My argument is simple. If you condemn homosexuality on the basis of OT law, you must condemn a thousand other things for the same reason. You must also affirm slavery, polygamy, genocide, theocracy and the like. Do you really think we should stone Sabbath breakers?

Agreed. Christ alone can make us righteous. He will purify us, one sin at a time. We must come to him with trusting hearts and say, “Show me my sins that cause you pain. Help me destroy them.” It might be my sexual behavior. If so, Christ will make this clear in his good time. Again, it might be my judgment of someone* else’s* sexual behavior. If so, Christ will make that clear in his good time. Loving, faithful obedience to the living Christ will save us, not the formulation of rules and our adherence to them.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. However, what certainly would be a sin for me (eg. marrying a prostitute) might not be a sin for someone else (like poor old Hosea). Similarly, Saul took Samuel’s place before battle and was condemned. David ate consecrated bread, but was not condemned. If (like David) I circumcised 200 unbelievers in order to win my bride, I’d be taken away by little men in white coats, and rightly so, yet David was a man after God’s own heart.

When you are without sin, by all means throw your stone. Christ hated hypocrisy, judgmentalism and self-righteousness far more than he hated homosexuality. Homosexuality was so much on Jesus’ mind he mentioned it not once. Not once. Truly, truly, I know my own secret sins (or some of them). Knowing my own heart, I’m not about to make moral pronouncements on anyone, or give them advice, except for this one thing. Go to Christ! He is the Great Physician. He will tell you what to do.

I don’t hate you.

The Pharisees knew the truth. Women caught in adultery must be stoned. Moses said so. But they were wrong.

We both might be wrong on this issue too. Nothing is more likely. Therefore we must go to Christ. He will help us understand God’s mind and heart.

I agree with all you have said, Pilgrim but, I do not know any other objective way of knowing God and so I try to read honestly and stand and walk in honesty. I am less comfortable with being my own authority than trusting the written word. I have tried it in the past and it didn’t work for me. I believe all find what they truly seek and if we love one another, we speak truth. Also, I believe the old adage that "It is your friends that know you best, and love you anyway.
Love and peace to you!
Kelly

Thanks for the link, Auggy.
I’m going to check it out. I think you are right in your comment of “venturing to sympathize . .” I think, if we are worried about keeping the “law” for salvation, it becomes like ET. We are in a panic to “make” it “work”. But, if we walk out God’s “law” because we are already in a state of no condemnation, it makes the division between Torah and Talmud extremely wide and obviously discernible.
Thank you for the link!
Kelly

Hello Auggy and Bob,
I understand what you are saying and am sympathetic to it. I understand we are all at different places. I tend to think the real confusion is that organized christian religion teaches people to disregard the Torah as a standard of right and wrong and just go with an alternate set of rules that they command or just whatever we want to believe instead. The “law of the Spirit” is to follow Torah because of our changed hearts and the indwelling Holy Spirit. For example, Jesus says if a man lusts after a woman, he has committed adultery with her in His heart. But, if a man keeps Torah with a right heart and by the Spirit, not only does he not lust, he will not go farther and actually make sexual contact with her. Thus, in fulfilling the law of the Spirit, the man also fulfills the written law. So, I find the confusion is with the view that “Jesus nailed the law to the cross” verses what is truly spoken, that “He nailed to the cross the handwriting against us” - the judgment against us because we sinned. He paid the price for our sin. The sin isn’t Torah, it is perfect. The sin is breaking the Torah. I believe this is why there is confusion about what standard we are to live by, if any. What are you thoughts?
Blessing and peace!
Kelly

Hi Bob,
You have no need to apologize. We all have those touchy areas that get prodded sometimes and bring feelings but, God has taught me to take responsibility for my own feelings. If you have not sinned against me, there is no need for reconciliation. My feelings are for me to deal with and you need not feel responsible for them. I try to be sensitive to the needs for change in my life (sometimes indicated by my feelings) but, other than that, I’m pretty thick skinned. So, please don’t have any remorse or hesitations in being completely honest with me. Thank you for the kind words about the discussions.

I do see what you mean. I think feelings of love are the same in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. At least, it seems like it from my conversations with friends in homosexual relationships. I also think love toward God and our neighbor means to not sin against them. I find love is what we do (All the Torah and the prophets hangs on the two commandments reiterated by Jesus, Love Yehovah your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love you neighbor as yourself.) Which, says to me that to obey Torah by the power of the Holy Spirit within (and not for a means of salvation), is what it means to love. As humans, we also have feelings of love which, may or may not be in line with true love. I understand that our feelings are real even if they are not portraying truth. For example, my feelings may lead me to be angry with you in context of the paragraph above. But, the truth is, you have not sinned against me in any way. Therefore, my feelings are wrong. Though, they may be real. (Just an example, I don’t have any bad feelings toward you.)

I would love to hear what others have to say on Jesus’ approach to Torah. Right now, my opinion is that He kept it perfectly (or He couldn’t have been the Passover Lamb) and that we should interpret it the way He did. He interpreted it in Himself. And, “fidelity” is doing what Jesus did.
My opinion of the Pharisees is, that they didn’t keep Torah. They oppressed people with the rules they added to and took away from Torah. Jesus was a threat to their authority and they fought against His authority.
I believe Jesus’ belief that His approach fulfilled the right interpretation of what God’s Torah valued is, correct. Because, He is the God of Creation. I will read your paper today and ponder it, then get back to you.
I keep hearing this term, “Jewish roots” and while there is meaning in the plain words, I am not fully familiar with what is being said. I know you are probably busy but, could you give me a first grade definition of that so, I know what you mean when we talk about it? I would appreciate it. I am sorry, Bob and, a lot embarrassed to admit, I’m just a middle aged housewife that reads Scripture and tries to follow God honestly the best way I know how. I don’t have a big education or any great learning to offer anyone. :blush: I am (obviously) not shy about conversing honestly with others but, I don’t have anything to add that the Scriptures don’t already seem to say. As long as you don’t see that as a waste of time, I would be delighted to converse with you. :slight_smile:
May your day be filled with all goodness and joy!
Kelly

Hi Allan,
Do you want me to answer these questions or are they theoretical or rhetorical?
I agree that love covers a multitude of sins. I think my point here and the title of this thread was to define sodomy theologically which, I assumed meant from Scripture since, it is our only truly objective source of law. Sin is the breaking of that law. I don’t need law to have feelings of love toward anyone. But, I believe love is having a good conscience toward God in obeying Him by His Spirit in Torah. So, unless someone has sinned against me or I, against someone (according to objective truth), then there is nothing to cover. I believe you are right in saying we are called to love God. He is our King. Every king has rules for his kingdom. Our King’s rules are Torah.
I know we seem to bump heads on things but, want you to know I appreciate your insights and think a lot about what you say.
Hope your day is blessed!
Kelly

Kelly,

Thanks for the kind response! Housewives must forgive me, but you are much more literate and impressive than many! By “Jewish” background, I sensed your familiarity with the Hebrew Scripture, and use of terms and spellings that friends in Messianic Judaism use. I’m curious where you gained this familiarity.

My impresson is that organized Christianity teaches a spectrum about whether we must obey Torah. In the Five Views book, three reformed protestants see it as binding on Christians. One which doesn’t, dispensationalism, seems far fetched to me. But I sense that Paul passionately disagreed that some practices taught in Torah should be binding on Gentile believers. And I think he grasped Jesus’ lead on the law. As in my two page paper, it seems to me that Israel’s leaders reasonably thought Jesus encouraged violation of the laws plain letter and that St. John was right to say that they saw him breaking the Sabbath. Mark says that Jesus declared all foods clean. I’m not seeing how Torah declares that, etc. I look forward to your differing take on such passages.

I wish all of the Lord’s continuing best to you,

Grace be with you,

Bob

Thank you so much, Bob. I actually know many housewives that are a lot smarter than I am. So, by “Jewish” background you mean “Hebrew roots”? I am familiar with the Hebrew Scripture. Mainly, my walk with God has been in just reading the Bible from beginning to end and has included some study of the original languages. I guess my biggest asset is my husband. He is really intelligent. He taught himself Greek and actually reads from the Greek manuscript. He is gifted in languages, in my opinion. He and I first started calling God Yehovah when we were looking at God’s Name in an interlinear. They translated it from the Hebrew as Yahweh. Howard said it didn’t look right. We went to verify the Hebrew according to the interlinear pronunciation chart and found it should have been pronounced Yehovah. I know Jesus’ name is Yehoshua in Hebrew from my studies with Howard. And, in using the esword program, I discovered Yeshua was also another name for Jesus. My desire, in using Hebrew was to remember that Jesus’ name actually means something important and points to who His is. In talking with others I go back and forth between Jesus and Yeshua, mainly because I have never heard anyone refer to Jesus as Yehoshua and I didn’t want to confuse anyone. Although, there are many derivatives of Yehoshua. I like studying the original languages but, I am not real good at it so, if I say something wrong, please let me know.

The issue you’re speaking of in the two examples above is, Jesus’ contention with the man made laws the Pharisees presumptuously added to the Torah.
“The whole thing which I am commanding you–it ye observe to do; thou dost not add unto it, nor diminish from it.”(Deu 12:32)
The washing of the hands was their tradition, not Torah. So, Jesus is explaining to them that eating with unwashed hands does not defile the food or the man but, the wicked “inside” of the Pharisees made them unclean. Their wickedness in adding to the Torah and oppressing people with their own “doctrines and commandments of men”, was the real wicked act. I find the idea of “clean” foods somewhat faulty. I see that God made a list of things that He said was food for us. That is the list of foods. For example, my dog eats rocks. He can choke them down but, rocks aren’t food. We can “ingest” just about anything but, not everything is food for us. The reason we eat “from the list” is just our idea that He made us and knows what we should run off of so, we go with it. Sort of like, I found out the hard way that the weed eater didn’t run well off straight gas. :blush:
I downloaded your paper but, had to get some other things done this afternoon. I’ll read it soon and get back with you as soon as I can. Might be a day or two, I want to look up the references and so forth. I’m looking forward to looking at it! Thank you for sharing.
May His comforts delight your soul!
Kelly

Hi Kelly,

I was raised and trained in your view that the Mosaic Law is simply what is healthy and best for us, and that Jesus simply challenged extra-Biblical traditional rules (not a reasonable reading of Torah), and I long shared and taught that widely held interpretation. But I have come to think Jesus turned things upside down more provocatively than that.

On Mark 7:19, isn’t Jesus explicitly referring to what “goes into our stomach” (not to the impact of unclean hands). And isn’t Mark’s inspired interpretation, “In saying this, He declared all foods clean”? Thus, don’t the apostles endorse Jesus’ stance in Acts 15 when they decide to refuse to require all the food laws for Christians? And doesn’t Paul declare in Romans 14 that differences among Gentiles and Jewish traditions as to what we should eat don’t really matter?

On my other example of the Sabbath, isn’t the Torah’s language that all “work” is deadly wrongful? But when Jesus defends his actions in John, doesn’t he literally assert, “I work on the Sabbath” (arguing that he follows the lead of God Himself). I don’t see him making the defense that his and the disciples’ actions are not ‘work,’ but that he has precedent and authority to determine how love should be at work on the Sabbath, even if the devout would understandably think it was work that could wait, and thus they would understandably be convinced that Jesus had clearly made a subjective human rationalization to excuse a blatant violation of Torah. It appears to me that such passages imply as plainly as one could ask that Jesus challenged the natural reading of Mosaic Law.

Sorry it’s taken me a while to get back to you.
I respect your approach Kelly. I suppose that I don’t trust myself to be objective when I read scripture. One thing I know for sure is that I interpret it differently to Fred who interprets it differently to Wilma even though we all say we believe it is the Word of God ( at least I used to say that).
I think one important consideration is how different the starting points of our journeys were. You from Paganism, me from Pentecostal fundamentalism. Please don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying that I’m further down the road than you -its more likely that you have learned so much more that I yet need to learn. But I believe that God knows exactly what each of us needs in our journey and takes us down that route.
For each of us, our destination is the fullness of the Spirit of Christ.

God bless you

Scripture is the Word of God, but people’s interpretation of Scripture is based on their cultural and educational understandings and therefore none can ever say that what they believe concerning Scripture is the Truth, even if Scripture itself is true. According to the apostles, the Law contains no truth, the truth came in Jesus Christ.

Hi SotW:

Can you tell me where you get this idea from and how you define ‘Scripture’?

Blessings.

The definition

SCRIPTURE:
Invariably in the New Testament denotes that definite collection of sacred books, regarded as given by inspiration of God

WORD:
a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning.

GOD: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Well, this really begs the question doesn’t it. I mean, one thing we know for sure is that when Christ quoted scripture He included texts which we do not now possess, texts which are outside of our OT canon.
Perhaps you do not regard the NT as ‘scripture’.
As for where you get the idea that scripture is ‘the Word of God’, you have not even attempted to support that statement but seem to have avoided the issue by, for some strange reason, reciting some simple definitions for ‘Word’ and ‘God’.
No matter.
May God’s richest blessings be upon you.

O.K. Bob, two pages filled with Scripture references isn’t the same as a two page document. It’s like 100 pages in 2! LOL! So, to be fair and take a good look at your paper is taking me a lot longer but, I want to deal with the text honestly and try to think without any presuppositions when I read. Sorry, it is taking me so long.
As I look at this passage in Mark, I am asking myself, what is the accusation the pharisees are bringing against them? The fact that the pharisees found fault with Jesus’ disciples is in vs 2. Also, in vs 2 is the reason why they “found fault”. It was that they ate bread with unwashed hands which they considered the hands to be “defiled”. Verse 3 goes over why the pharasiees “found fault” with the disciples. It was because the disciples "did not wash their hands in a special way which, was holding to the “tradition of the elders”. The “tradition of the elders” are/were “the doctrines and commandments of men” not, the Torah of God. I find the whole issue is the disciples did not “hold to the tradition of the elders”. They did not break a commandment of God in eating with unwashed hands but, they did break the “tradition of the elders”. Jesus said to the pharisees, You are hypocrites just like Isaiah said, you honor Me with your lips but, your heart is far from me. And in vain you worship Me, teaching teachings, the commands of men. “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men.”. So, Jesus just said, you are not teaching the commandment of God but, your own traditions! This is why I think the pharisees were oppressing with traditions, not God’s law. This is the context and the whole issue in the passage. Jesus is saying your laws mean nothing but, God’s law does and you pharisees don’t keep God’s law! Jesus then judges that when the disciples eat without “walking in the traditions of the elders” by this “special” hand washing, they do not break God’s law therefore, the food they are eating (which would have been “clean” already) is indeed clean. I don’t see Jesus wiping out God’s law in one verse in the middle of this whole issue of the hand washing He is addressing but, just saying it is clean even if My disciples don’t keep your silly traditions.
Concerning Acts, I’m sorry, I’m not sure what chapter and verse you are talking about. I think 15:20? The Council in Jerusalem told them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled and from blood. After that, if anything is “missed” in the Torah, vs 21 goes on to say, “For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” Which is to say, you can hear what else by going to synagogue on the Sabbath. Romans 14, comes right after 13:8-10 where Paul gives them the commandments of God. In the contextual reading Paul is saying some people eat just veggies (which are “clean”) and some eat meats and whatever else which, within the context seems to be whatever else is “food” or on the list. Much like some people look down on others who are vegan today.

It is actually all customary work. If you are a gardener, gardening may constitute work. If you are a postman, walking may constitute work for you but, not for everyone. God is very free and open in the celebration of Sabbath. You can not do what is customary work for you. “Customary Work” for His disciples would be fishing off of boats and cleaning nets. Even the priest broke the Sabbath and yet were guiltless in the OT. To the legalistic man made traditions of the pharisees what Jesus did was work because they have a lot of extra rules concerning the Sabbath which, is not Torah. Jesus blatantly violated the pharisees man made traditions and poked them in the eye continually BECAUSE they did not keep Torah!

I’ll get back with you on your paper. Have a wonderful day, Bob!

Kelly,

Thanks for your diligence. You’re right :wink: Two pages is misleading! (Tho it adds little to the issues we’re already addressing on the food & Sabbath laws.) Help me with what I’m missing.

#1. You repeat: Mark 7’s context offers a debate on handwashing, declared to be a silly man-made tradition. I TOTALLY agree!!! But, how does that solve vss. 14-23? Jesus clarifies the underlying kingdom principle: what “passes through the stomach” (i.e. no food inside of you, right?) can never defile you. And God’s own interpretation spells out, “every kind of food” is acceptable (7:19). How could a more unmistakeable challenge to Torah’s food restrictions be phrased?

You say, Jesus surely would not “wipe out” the food laws. But if so, why does Acts 15:19-21 say, “Stop troubling the Gentile” believers with all the “laws of Moses,” “except” or “instead” of only the few you quote? Also, why is Peter (10:9-15; 11:5-9) who never “ate anything the law called unclean” shown unclean animals, and repeatedly told, “Eat them”? And why does Paul insist, not veggies vs. meat, but “NO FOOD in itself is wrong to eat” (Rom. 14:14)? If Jesus’ principle, and freedom from Mosaic Law, is consistently upheld, is it those who insist Torah is binding who reject God’s ultimate Word?

#2. You say Moses’ Sabbath prohibited onlycustomary” work, defined as duties required by one’s employment. This sounds like a ‘man-made’ interpretation. Doesn’t Torah specify, “NO one may do any kind of work,” and apply this universally, e.g. to anyone preparing food, etc., even those for whom this ‘work’ was not their ‘customary’ job? (P.S. Do you think it’s crucial that it remain the “seventh day,” Saturday, that “work” be a capital crime?) As in my paper, I personally sympathize with Jews’ sense that Jesus’ revolutionary interpretation led the church to undermine obedience to their more literal reading of Torah.

Grace be with you,
Bob

Thanks Bob,
I maintain that God did not call say, swine, “food”. So when you say “all food” you think, whatever anyone feels like ingesting. I assume what God calls food in His Word. Jesus even rebukes the pharisees in vs 9, telling them, all to well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. And again, in v 13, Jesus rebukes the pharisees saying, you make the word of God of no effect through your tradition. Why would Jesus then turn and play the hypocrite telling others to reject the commandment of God? In vs 14-23 Jesus uses the opportunity to say that it is a man’s heart that makes him defiled, specifically speaking about the pharisees. But, returns to say it is not because you didn’t follow the traditions of the elders in the special washing of hands. All “foods” are clean. This saying you are using to discredit Torah (The God of the universes law, He who knows beginning from end) is interesting. If we apply the “anything” word in v 15, we could say swallowing say, poison kool aid is ok for us, it doesn’t really matter because Jesus said ANYTHING is clean so, let’s throw off the “law” of God and exercise our freedom from the Torah of God and all just drink the kool aid. You see, how what you’re saying doesn’t work if you really do apply it to ANYTHING that goes into a man’s body.

You say you were raised with the Bible. I was not. When I first wanted to know God, I read the Bible. There was A LOT I had never heard before. It took time for me to comprehend what relationship with God meant, to understand what we should both expect out of our relationship. in v 21 the apostles and elders of the way say, let them learn the rest in the synagogues on the Sabbath instead of giving them all the laws now, give them some that are beneficial to them and let them learn as they go so they don’t feel overwhelmed and start struggling “under the law” instead of walking with God in relationship and growing into what is right. I think it’s important to remember this “movement” was mostly Jews realizing their Savior had come. When reaching out to pagans who were in no way familiar with God’s ways it would take time for them begin to walk with this God they did not know (experience speaking on that).

#2 Again on the Sabbath, you define “work” as “doing anything”. You want to portray absolute tyranny in God’s law but, that is not so. For some, it is restful to take a walk. For some it is not. Yes, it is crucial that it remain the 7th day. If you knew more about the sun god worship day (sunday) and if you have seen what I have in paganism, you may understand better. One points to the God that delivered His people from every day slavery and gave them rest, the other points to idols that demand your worship, demand you burn your child to death in the fire, and many other evil things you can be thankful you haven’t had to even think about with your upbringing in the Bible. I’m not sure what you mean by “capital crime” but, you may even live to see the day when all people on earth are forced to bow the knee on Sunday to the sun god or die (sadly, many christians will never realize there is a difference between the sun god and the Son God). Also, two things on the “capital crime” comment; 1.) I don’t know everyone’s understanding but, Israel’s religious and civil laws were the same. God’s laws are still just and the judgments are still just (though we think we are smarter than God in this). There is no reason to have to be judged if, as Paul says, we would judge ourselves rightly. Be that as it may, there is going to be a day of judgment and God has gently put His hand out to us for a relationship with Him now so we can receive His grace. And, 2.) I never used a statement like “capital crime”. I’m not sure why you chose to put those words down as coming from me but, I assure you I am quite capable of getting myself into enough trouble with my honest, and sometimes,“tactless” comments. I don’t need any help.
I am surprised that this whole tolerance of pretty much anything doesn’t extend to someone who is simply and honestly trying to live rightly according to what most would consider a good standard and, more importantly, what God has given us in written language to know His story and His relationship with people. I’m quite taken aback by it. Is there something I am missing about EU? I thought it was this “Bible” that was used to establish this movement. If not, what was?
Much of what I have read on these posts are more closely aligned with Unitarian Universalism instead of UR. God help us if this is where the movement goes.
Righteousness and justice are the foundations of His throne. Mercy and truth go before His Face. Blessed are the people who know the joyful sound! May we all know the joyful sound!
Kelly