Nope, this one is in the bible (old testament), roughly in the same place where these are also listed as sins:
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
Do not practice divination or seek omens.
Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
And my favorite to point out to them:
When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
Also the same book prohibits eating shrimps, and many other things that they will quickly jump to say it doesn’t apply anymore, because most christians do a pick and choose of things in the bible they follow and things they don’t. There’s a game where you and a group of friends follow everything on the bible, the last one jailed wins.
I made this argument in another thread, and someone replied that those were rules for Israelites, but not actual sins. They said God made a covenant with the Israelites about things that would be illegal, but not immoral beyond the fact it meant breaking the covenant itself. There is some reason to accept this, as Leviticus does focus on the new covenant with the Israelites specifically.
However, several books of the new testament are letters where Paul is instructing new churches and he explicitly reinforces the idea that at least some of the covenant laws still apply, including homosexuality (between men). As for Jesus, he seems kind of inconsistent about what is retconned in the gospels. He rejects things like “eye for an eye”, stoning adulterers, and complete prohibition of work on the Sabbath, but also has this passage
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matthew 5:17–18 (NIV)
If I were trying to create a consistent biblical position, I would interpret this to mean the stuff from the old testament still applies unless something newer specifically counters it. But Christians ignore a lot of Jewish laws, so I think most would disagree with that.
My favorite are the ones who say Genesis isn’t literal because being a YEC is a step too far even for them, but then the whole point of Jesus gets awkward real fast when sin isn’t real.
24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols.
25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.
Nope, this one is in the bible (old testament), roughly in the same place where these are also listed as sins:
And my favorite to point out to them:
Also the same book prohibits eating shrimps, and many other things that they will quickly jump to say it doesn’t apply anymore, because most christians do a pick and choose of things in the bible they follow and things they don’t. There’s a game where you and a group of friends follow everything on the bible, the last one jailed wins.
I made this argument in another thread, and someone replied that those were rules for Israelites, but not actual sins. They said God made a covenant with the Israelites about things that would be illegal, but not immoral beyond the fact it meant breaking the covenant itself. There is some reason to accept this, as Leviticus does focus on the new covenant with the Israelites specifically.
However, several books of the new testament are letters where Paul is instructing new churches and he explicitly reinforces the idea that at least some of the covenant laws still apply, including homosexuality (between men). As for Jesus, he seems kind of inconsistent about what is retconned in the gospels. He rejects things like “eye for an eye”, stoning adulterers, and complete prohibition of work on the Sabbath, but also has this passage
Matthew 5:17–18 (NIV)
If I were trying to create a consistent biblical position, I would interpret this to mean the stuff from the old testament still applies unless something newer specifically counters it. But Christians ignore a lot of Jewish laws, so I think most would disagree with that.
My favorite are the ones who say Genesis isn’t literal because being a YEC is a step too far even for them, but then the whole point of Jesus gets awkward real fast when sin isn’t real.
Ezekiel 20 also says hello:
24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols.
25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;
26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.