Is it it ok for Christians to protest against government?

[johnthebaptist]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Those that are reinforced in the NT we practice and those that are rejected we neglect. We also practice precept or principle over the letter as precedented in the NT. 

God calls some things abominations. I figure if God said something is an abomination, it is an abomination, no matter who the audience.

[johnthebaptist]

17 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Relevance to the specific content of my post?

No. There are people who claim we can ignore what God said in the Old Testament, reasoning that God was only talking to the Jews in the Old Testament, so I am making the point that if God calls something an abomination, it's an abomination, whether you are Christian or Jew.

For example, in the Old Testament God calls homosexuality an abomination (Leviticus 18:22). Some argue God wasn't talking to Christians, but my point is that if God called homosexuality an abomination, then it's an abomination, whether you are Christian, Jew, or anything else.

[leah777]

4 hours ago, johnthebaptist said:

No. There are people who claim we can ignore what God said in the Old Testament, reasoning that God was only talking to the Jews in the Old Testament, so I am making the point that if God calls something an abomination, it's an abomination, whether you are Christian or Jew.

For example, in the Old Testament God calls homosexuality an abomination (Leviticus 18:22). Some argue God wasn't talking to Christians, but my point is that if God called homosexuality an abomination, then it's an abomination, whether you are Christian, Jew, or anything else.

Homosexually is a red herring.

ANY sexual activity of any type outside the marriage of a man and a woman is an abomination and against the commandments of Jesus.

It's not love and therefore is covered by Jesus second commandment.

[johnthebaptist]

1 minute ago, leah777 said:

Homosexually is a red herring.

ANY sexual activity of any type outside the marriage of a man and a woman is an abomination and against the commandments of Jesus.

It's not love and therefore is covered by Jesus second commandment.

I know adultery is a sin. God specifically labeled homosexuality an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).

[johnthebaptist]

9 minutes ago, Josheb said:

And I am asking you how that is relevant to my previous post. If God calls something an abomination then it's an abomination. Great. So what? How is that relevant to the contents of my previous post? I didn't say anything about abominations one way or another. How is that relevant to the contents of my post? 

You said, "Those that are reinforced in the NT we practice and those that are rejected we neglect." I'm not aware of anything in the Old Testament that is rejected. I went on to say that an abomination is an abomination, no matter what your faith. I've got people telling me that abominations in the Old Testament aren't abominations at all, let alone for Christians.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2020 by johnthebaptist

[johnthebaptist]

38 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Then I encourage you to re-read your New Testament and re-read it as many times as it takes to realize many things in the OT are in fact rejected. The law as a means of justification, for example, is soundly rejected in the NT. The premise that "Israel" is solely a matter of bloodline or genetics is also soundly rejected in the NT. The idea Israel is the seed of Abraham is likewise undeniably rejected in the NT. The OT dietary laws are rejected. The separate priesthood is rejected (we are all priests, royal priests). 

Yes, and I went on to ask how in all heaven and earth that is relevant to the contents of my posts, the content about which you've just acknowledged a lack of knowledge. 

I shouldn't have to ask. I most definitely shouldn't have to ask twice, thrice, or four or five times. 

 

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” Matt 5:17 RSV 

When we sin, we get ourselves into trouble. The law was meant to protect us from that: 

[1] Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
[2] but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night. Psalm 1:1-2 RSV

[johnthebaptist]

9 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Mark 7:18-19
"And He said to them, 'Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,  because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?' (Thus He declared all foods clean.)" 

So now you are aware of an OT law that was done away with in the NT, and it was done away with by the guy who gave the original law in the OT! 

Titus 3:9-11
"But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.  As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,  knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." 

I can quote scripture, too. AND I can do so in a manner that is actually relevant to the post I address. You should try it sometime. Until you do so we're done here.

Like I say, when we sin, we get ourselves into trouble. I think it's good advice not to sin.

[johnthebaptist]

8 minutes ago, Josheb said:

non sequitur

No one has suggested otherwise. 

Well, you suggest we should ignore the Old Testament, while saying we shouldn't sin. How can you do both? 

[johnthebaptist]

20 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Never said any such thing. Never implied any such thing. Never remotely insinuated any such thing. I posted what I meant, meant what I posted and proved with with well-rendered scripture. Now you've born false witness. 

Make it right if you want an answer to your question (because there is a scriptural answer to your question if you've sked that question sincerely and if you're actually genuinely interested in the answer). You cannot post irrelevancies, refused to explain relevance, ignore what scripture teaches, ask questions and then ignore the answers, and make false statements about others' posts if you wish the contents of your own posts to be taken seriously. Cogent discourse is not possible with such practitioners. 

Or don't make it right. I'm content to let your posts bear witness to your views. 

I am pleased you find value in the Old Testament.

[johnthebaptist]

6 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I am not pleased you don't know the New Testament sufficiently enough to understand the Old Testament, apply it  in answer to and address the question at hand, or enough to participate cogent in the conversation without resorting to fallacy and abuse but instead bring woefully inadequate claims into the forum for the ls mature and uniformed  to stumble over.

James 3:1
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."

 

The question asked was, "How do we know which things in the Old Testament apply to Christians, and which do not?" and I answered that question. We continue to practice that which the NT reinforces, stop doing that which the NT discards, and work out whatever might remain through prayerful exegesis and reason. 

You're on record stating a lack of knowledge how the NT informs us accordingly. That's a problem. 
You're on record derisively assuming things nowhere posted. That is a problem. 
You're on record being invited to return to cogency and ignoring it. That is a problem. 

And for some reason you now thing your pleasure in something that was never in dispute is a cogent response. That too is a problem. 

 

 

The question asked was, "How do we know which things in the Old Testament apply to Christians, and which do not?" and I answered that question. We continue to practice that which the NT reinforces, stop doing that which the NT discards, and work out whatever might remain through prayerful exegesis and reason. Since it's clear this is a new concept to you, one for which some learning is definitely warranted, and the opportunity to do so having availed itself I encourage consideration of the point. 

We continue to practice that which the NT reinforces, discard that which the NT discards, and work out whatever might remain through prayerful exegesis and reason.

 

I just know that sin brings trouble into my life. Therefore, I try not to sin.