Mfw I realized this morning that according to the Bible it is entirely okay to eat dogs

>missing the point this hard
that Romans passage is saying that everything a believer does should be done to the glory of God, AND that no believer should do something that violates the conscience of another believer

#imwithher

It literally says that dietary restrictions, being works of the law, are now a sign of weak faith. This isn't even a matter of some dispensationalism. If what is kosher is at all relevant today then so are the other 600+ tenets of Mosaic Law.

Christ's sacrifice fulfilled the part of the law that required dietary restrictions. Christians are allowed to eat any animal unless it would cause scandal to or for Christians. For example, it's okay to eat meat sacrificed to an idol (idols hold no real power) as long as you're not eating with a recent convert from paganism who is at risk of falling back into idolatry.

It's okay to eat dogs as long as doing so wouldn't scandalize Christians. Eating dogs is taboo in historically Christian countries for cultural reasons not really related to religion, so your eating dog as a Christian would just be bad optics both for and to Christians that might cause other Christians to stumble in the faith, so should be avoided out of consideration for others even if it isn't inherently sinful.

That's because it is.

it literally doesn't
biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/14.htm
I know the argument
I'm saying the NT never explicitly states kosher laws are to be broken
in fact the NT speaks very highly of the mosaic law whenever possible

it’s saying “do what thou wilt”. christianity is an antinomian child sex cult

>biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/14.htm

Seems to be saying the same thing on my end.

Okay now this is retarded. Paul definitely says you can eat whatever you want as long as its done in faith. However he definitely says you are not allowed to willfully sin, let alone screw kids.

Acts 10
>9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
>14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
>15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
>16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

What, in your mind, would be more a more explicit statement that the dietary laws are fulfilled?

then you need to revisit your reading comprehension
Paul never throws out the law
he only ever (rightfully) claims that the law cannot cause someone to be righteous
the one weak in his faith leans on more restrictive laws in an attempt to justify himself
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
the first time I heard this interpretation I was 13/14 years old, and knew it was bullshit even then
God is telling Peter that things from Him are not to be called unclean because Peter was attempting to exclude gentiles from the Church
anyone who tries to tell you God gave Peter a vision so he could eat bacon is spinning you a tale

Attached: 6-reasons-why-laughter-is-the-best-medicine.jpg (643x300, 109K)

>God is telling Peter that things from Him are not to be called unclean because Peter was attempting to exclude gentiles from the Church
Sit down for a minute and think about what the dietary laws were originally intended to accomplish.

Where do you get your clothes?

Attached: images.jpg (211x239, 11K)

i don't have to
Paul tells us exactly why:
>Why the Law then? It was added [ac]because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up [ah]everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
The law was given to expose unrighteousness. Continuing in unrighteousness is contrary to God's purposes.

The dietary laws, like the rest of the ceremonial laws of the Hebrews (you aren't a Hebrew by the way), were instituted to mark the Hebrews as a holy people apart from the rest. Think about how that might be relevant to this post:

but whites invented homosexuality

citation? or are you just making up your own interpretation? do you also hang a rainbow flag in front of your """""church"""""?

>citation? or are you just making up your own interpretation?
Are you being genuine here? Is this an honest question? Do you truly believe that this is an unheard of innovation originating with myself? This has been the church's teaching for 2,000 years. Have you never heard of the Council of Jerusalem?

>do you also hang a rainbow flag in front of your """""church"""""?
Now that you mention it, my church considers Sodomites to be of the same camp as Judaizers.

>my church
not that guy but no wonder you're a flaming homosexual

>the Council of Jerusalem
recorded in the book of Acts where nothing about the dietary laws being meant to mark the israelites as God's people is mentioned
try again

The Council of Jerusalem decided that Gentile converts to Christianity don't have to be taught the Mosaic dietary laws, just the Noahide dietary laws.

I have to ask, are you arguing in good faith or not?

Oh nevermind, you're just a faggot. And here I thought you actually cared about diction

>nothing about the dietary laws being meant to mark the israelites as God's people
Have you read the Old Testament?

multiple times

Are you familiar with any instances where God gave his reasoning when he handed down his laws?

are you?

Yes.

Except for fasting like half the time you don't have to follow other dietary restrictions. No need to follow the old diary law.

FUCK ME IN THE ASS COS I LOVE JESUS

>Paul said
Paul was a a wolf in sheep’s clothing
www.problemswithpaul.com