First off, study the context of any Bible verse condemning something, to see what the intent of the Law is. Cause Jesus saying "God made the Sabbath for Man not Man for the Sabbath" shows that he wants us to follow the intent of the law more so then the letter of it.
spent a lot of time arguing that Christians need to stop labeling
things a Sin that I point out The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn like
they think it does.
But one thought that may enter one's mind is,
as big a book as The Bible is, can it really address every single
hypothetical Sin that could possibly happen?
There are only three areas
where I feel Sin can be defined broadly.
Any act of worship to a false
god, or occult ritual, whether or not it's a pagan practice specifically
addressed in The Bible is obviously a violation of the first Two
Commandments, and of Jesus's Command to Love God with all our heart,
mind, body and soul. Matthew 22:37-28.
Anything you do that harms another person, or violates their rights is a violation of the Golden Rule Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
and to Love our Neighbor as we Love ourselves, Matthew 22:39. The word
translated "men" there is Anthropos, which means Man as in Mankind,
it's not actually Gender specific, neither Greek or Hebrew used the same
word for both those meanings as we do. So yes Jesus's wording of The
Golden Rule applies to our treatment to women too. Which is why I
recommend starting with that when arguing with Anti-Christians who think
The Bible is pro-Rape.
Third, the fact that as a believer our
Bodies are the Temple of God, because we have The Holy Spirit indwelling
in us, means doing things harmful to ourselves and our own health can
In summery, things that harm your relationship with
God, with your fellow Man, or your own body are sinful, and you
shouldn't need specific Bible verses thrown at you to figure that out if
your trying to Follow the Law of Love and being led by The Holy Spirit.
As a Libertarian I believe the Civil Laws of government should address only category two.
all the stuff in The Bible used to show that God judged even our
thoughts. Are all references to thinking about things that are sinful.
But that doesn't mean you've sinned as soon as your tempted, the sin is
in indulging in those thoughts.
Thing is, pretty much all
specific things The Bible condemns fit into one of those three
categories as well. The exceptions being mostly the superficial aspects of the
Mosaic Law which Christians are clearly not held to, from the Sabbath
and Circumcision to Dietary Laws. But even those have potential health
And after that, some of the things Paul says that he
never intended to be taken as outright Moral Law, but merely advise for
how Christians should present themselves, but that a lot of modern
Christian take as moral law anyway. Like the verses about men having
short hair and gender specific dress codes.
Prostitution is the
only major Moral Law that one could have trouble seeing how it fits into
those three categories. But it does carry a health risk, as a
Libertarian I know that the heath risks would be minimized a great deal
if it was legal (and it was legal under the civil law code parts of the
Mosaic Law). But they'll never go away completely, restaurants are
legal and sometimes they get away with violating their health codes.
Any time you have sexual relations with a complete stranger you're taking a
risk, both in terms of STDs and other safety risks.
why as open as my attitude towards sex is, I do still feel it's a bad
idea to have random sex with strangers, paid for or not. It's best to
limit your love life to people you know and trust.
And to fellow
Christians, we should avoid getting sexually or romantically involved
with unbelievers. Which leads to how prostitution is related to the
first category, it is often referenced in The Bible as allegorical of
Idolatry for a reason, your lover can be an influence on the way you
think. And that can happen even if the unbeliever isn't intentionally
seeking to influence their lover's religion. So no I'm not saying every
non-Christian is like a stereotypical exotic pagan temptress from an
old Hollywood Biblical Epic.
As I've argued elsewhere the intent
of Adultery laws is to prevent children from being born without a
family. And therefore I don't feel adultery laws should apply to non
reproductive sex. However, if either spouse is uncomfortable with it or
not aware of it that is a violation of trust.
All the things I
argue against traditional convention as things that aren't sinful, or at
least not the mortal wroth disfellowshipping someone over sins most
Christians think they are. Are all things that can in no way fit into
any of those three categories. Anything can be unhealthy if you do it
too much, but it's also been scientifically shown that moderately
engaging in masturbation actually has health benefits.
has health risks, even if your certain your partner has no STDs it's
been argued to be potentially physically damaging to the anus. But
contrary to popular assumption Anal isn't the only thing Gay men can or
do engage in. In fact studies at different times have suggested the
majority don't even like it. Consensual sex between two adults who love
and trust each other of the same gender can in no way be argued to
violate the Law of Love. Nor can sex between two adults who love and
trust each other but who aren't married.
Satan wants people to
think God condemns things he didn't just as much as he wants people to
think sins aren't sinful, maybe even more so.
I'm sure is shocking to many. But let's go back and study the origin of Sin and Satan's deception of humanity in Genesis 3.
of Genesis do a good job of pointing out how the first thing The
Serpent does is misquote what God said. But what "conservative"
commentators tend to avoid emphasizing is that his misquotation was for
the purpose of making God's word sound more restrictive then it was.
There was only one single tree they couldn't eat from, but the Serpent
makes it sound almost like the exact opposite, as if it was very few
trees they could eat from.
Then, commentators do a good Job of
pointing out how Eve's reaction seems to imply Adam had incorrectly
taught her what God said. But again avoid putting any emphasis on that
her misunderstanding of the command likewise made the command sound even
more restrictive then it was, as if they weren't allowed to even go
near the tree.
In fact Christians are constantly encouraging this
exact same attitude that laid behind why Adam probably taught it the
way he did. Telling people that because of the commands against
drunkenness we probably shouldn't even go in bars. Forgetting that
Jesus eat with sinners (as well as the Pharisees who he really didn't
So keep that in mind next time you see the very fact
that the World and/or the Occult is encouraging something your church
told you to view as a sin, as further confirmation it is a sin.
Consider that Satan might want to reinforce the wrong views on Moral Law
that many Christians hold.
I'm tired of being told I'm the one
interpreting God's Word loosely because I don't consider every single act
of divergent behavior a mortal sin. When I'm the one who understands
these passages as talking about specific things, in specific contexts,
for specific reasons. I hold these interpretations because of the same
Hermeneutic principles that lead me to be a Six-Day Young Earth
Creationist, a PreMillennial Futurist, and to firmly believe in
Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security.
I absolutely still
consider more then enough things sinful to justify "All have sinned and
fallen short of the glory of God", that can be demonstrated from the
Sermon on the Mount. So don't act like I'm a moral relativist who
While Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, and other
places talk about disfellowshiping Christians who are habitually
engaging in Sins that obviously violate the Law of Love (2 Corinthians 2
clarifies to forgive them and let them back in when they've fixed their
issues). Or who teach Damnable heresies (not any incorrect doctrine,
but one that effects Salvation, contradicting Justification by Faith
Alone, or that Jesus is the only Way). Romans 14 also talks about not
passing judgment on fellow Christians. Just because the Holy Spirit is
convicting you personally to refrain from a certain activity, doesn't
mean it's leading all believers to the same choice. He has different
walks for each of us.
I've been kicked out of Christian Message Boards
and Facebook groups for expressing my view that The Bible doesn't
Condemn Homosexuality. But these same boards do have people expressing
variant views on Salvation, including people who don't even agree with
"by Faith Alone".
Likewise, that Christian dating website,
ChristianMingle, won't let you sign up identifying as Homosexual or
Bisexual. But you are allowed to identify as someone who drinks
regularly, drinking alcohol is condemned in far more verses then all the
supposed homosexuality ones.
In fact there is no other areas
where their being restrictive, any denomination can qualify as
"Christian" for that site, including Catholics. Even if there where
verses, right in the Sermon on the Mount, declaring "though shalt not
love the same gender" and defining it as something wroth disfellowshiping
over. You'd still never convince me any devout Catholic is more of a
Christian then a homosexual who believers in Salvation by Faith through
Grace only, and Eternal Security.