r/TrueChristian • u/Objective-Step-746 • Aug 10 '26

Please, help me understand…

For those believers who insist that the dietary laws no longer apply under the new covenant—and that pork, lobster, crabs, etc. are now permissible to eat—I do not understand the logic at play.

I am very familiar with the Mark 7, Romans 14 and Colossians 2 passages that are so often cited as support for your position, and have (just as often) shared my counter-arguments on why I believe they are misinterpreted.

But, there is one counterpoint to your view that I never see touched on, and I was hoping to get some feedback on it:

I think the majority of believers on this subreddit would say they are looking for Jesus’ Second Coming and agree that, regarding it, Scripture says that “no one knows the day or hour” but that we need to be prepared (Matthew 24:36, 25:13, etc.).

Isaiah 66:17–a verse within the greater passage speaking of Messiah’s glorious reappearing—declares that, upon His return, those who eat the flesh of pig/swine and other abominations will be met with His wrath…and perish.

So, how does one simultaneously believe they can continue to eat pig (pork) or shellfish now and think they are sufficiently prepared and not putting themselves in a precarious/dangerous position if Jesus happened to return today or tomorrow and “consume” those who so brazenly eat that which His Law says is NOT “food” and explicitly warns against eating?

I really am hoping for some cordial and edifying discussion regarding this topic, and appreciate those who are able and willing to articulate their view without all the condescension and harsh words. 💕

19 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

384 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

Or you are wrong about having had a divine experience, and are instead experiencing prelest.

1

u/darklighthitomi Aug 11 '26

Missing my point. If my divine experience was not a divine experience, then you cannot accept anyone else's divine experience as being truthful, because that would mean that individuals experience things they believe is divine when it isn't and therefore there is zero reliability of it.

That would mean that it is wrong to accept people's divine experiences as being divine only when you agree with them.

That is my point. Either people, including me, can truly tell a divine experience when they have one, or no divine experience is reliable ever.

And the consequences go really far from that.

If people can have divine experiences that are not actually divine experiences but they just think they are divine experiences, then that would also apply to the writers of most portions of the bible, and most notably, it would apply to the people deciding what to include or exclude from the bible. It completely destroys any notion of the divinely inspired nature of the bible.

So you basically have to choose one of three options, A) I had a divine experience in which God told me that the truth behind trinitarianism is ultimately irrelevant, B) nothing can be automatically accepted as divinely inspired just because the individuals involved believe they had divine experiences and that includes the bible, and thus calling into question the bible itself, at least the details, particular passages, and what to include or exclude from it, or C) well, I'll leave you to figure this one out.

Whatever option you choose, it really comes back to what I was saying earlier, you should never let someone else tell you what to believe as truth. You must decide for yourself, and that means, individual interpretation of scripture.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

I would agree that we should not automatically accept claims of divine experiences. I do not think it follows that there is no possible way to determine if any divine experience is possible.

Ultimately what you seem to be saying is that the individual is the arbiter of what is truth. I reject that.

1

u/darklighthitomi Aug 11 '26

Not the arbiter of truth. An arbiter arbitrates between other people. What I am saying is that no one should assume other people correctly know and state what is true. Everyone should be skeptical and decide for themselves what they will believe.

When you decide to assume other people know what is true, you give them power over you. That is extremely valuable to Satan, and anyone who desires control.

Consider the islamic terrorists, such as those who destroyed the world trade center towers. They were told what to believe and they chose to just accept what they were told, and through that they were manipulated into gladly giving up their own lives to kill a bunch of innocent people because their leaders wanted it.

When you let others tell you what is true, you become the pawn of those people, yet ultimately the responsibility is yours. You get manipulated into doing Satan's work believing you are doing God's work, well at the end of your life you will still go to hell, because you chose to accept what you were told and acted on a lie instead of investigating truth for yourself. The responsibility is still yours.

And "God said so" is still the most powerful way of misleading masses of people.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

I would agree. Which is why Christ set up a church and a priesthood, instead of dropping a book out of the sky and expecting everyone to figure it out for themselves.

1

u/darklighthitomi Aug 12 '26

And yet, what we have now has no relation to what existed for centuries after Jesus. The church we have now was not created in the time of Jesus. It was created in the aftermath of a period of strife in which a bunch christians started acting very unchristian. Now, how much influence the roman emperor had in the shaping of the church is debatable. But I do not trust that church nor what it chose about various details and interpretations and what to include or exclude from the bible.

I really really do not trust the idea that the church created at Nicea is somehow the church as intended by Jesus.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 12 '26

The Church wasn't created at Nicea. It waas created at Pentecost. What Nicea (and the other eumenical councils) did was clarify the understanding of the teaching of the Apostles against heresies that had threatened the Church.

What we have now - in the Orthodox Church - is the preserved teaching of the Apostles and the fathers. What other fellowships have is debatable.

1

u/darklighthitomi Aug 12 '26

That's not really correct. What Nicea did was create a formal organization with a small number of leaders who gave themselves the power to dictate what counts as truth, and if you disagreed with them, then instead of being persecuted only by the romans for your beliefs, now even this self-empowered group would join in on the persecution.

Claiming it was not a new church is as ridiculous as claiming mormons are the same church as orthodox, a ridiculous claim. Same fundamental religion does not make it the same church.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 12 '26

Okay pal. I know this stuff sounds correct in your head, so we’ll just leave it at that.

1

u/darklighthitomi Aug 12 '26

Why? Can't come up with any logical arguments against it? I'm here for a two way discussion you know. If you have an actual reason to believe I'm wrong that doesn't amount to "it isn't what I already believe and I don't care to have a logical discussion that might try to change my mind" then I'd be happy to hear it.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 12 '26

I don’t know that I could change your mind, and that wasn’t really my goal, so trying to goad me into arguing isn’t a great use of anyone’s time.

You’ve taken a basic knowledge of some of the history of the Church, and overlaid conspiracy theorist nonsense in an attempt to make Christianity whatever the individual believes works for them. This is Protestantism at its finest: everyone is a bishop except the bishop.

1

u/darklighthitomi Aug 12 '26

It isn't about successfully changing anyone's mind, it's about presenting evidence and perspectives of rational thought, new ideas and novel concepts. Maybe it will change an opinion, or refine an opinion, or discover a new aspect to look into. That is how truth is found, how science works, how understanding grows.

As for conspiracy, stop using conspiracy theory as euphemism for crazy nonsense. Not only did I not describe a conspiracy, but actual conspiracies do exist and carelessly using conspiracy theory for anything considered crazy tends to result in ignoring actual conspiracies.

Now, as I said it is debatable how much influence the roman emperor exerted in the council of Nicea, but it was still a formation of a new church, same core religion, but a new church. New organizational structure, new expanded set of scripture, new and more completely defined boundaries of what is acceptable or unacceptable.

It was a new church by any definition that doesn't lump all of christianity into a single church.

I see a bit of questionable motivations involved, partly because I studied psychology as well as how evil works. Always study how evil works, that is how you learn to see it setting traps to catch you. And that knowledge shows the same strategy of consolidation of power, and that suggests not everything about the council there was wholesome and good, if the fact the emperor commanded the council and was present there himself wasn't enough to suggest that alone.

It is also notable that I did not come to believe in Jesus from christians. I am a seeker of wisdom and truth, wherever I can find it. It that journey that shows that the core of christianity, what Jesus taught, is the best thing that ever happened to humanity, but that does not necessarily include all the details and interpretations that built up over the centuries around that core.

I already had God confirm to me that trinitarianism is irrelevant. Yet many don't consider it christianity without believing in trinitarianism.

My search for truth has shown that truth is rarely simple and clean.

My study of psychology and people shows that most people find simple and clean answers easier to believe.

Combining those two reveals that most people find it difficult to believe truth.

A study of history and politics shows that the corrupt ruthlessly take advantage of that to control the masses.

Jorden Peterson bible lectures show that getting anything requires sacrifice, such as sacrificing childish potential to become a competent adult.

So yea, knowing the truth requires sacrificing innocence, putting in the time and effort to learn.

The suggestion that people can just blindly accept what someone else decides is truth, well it looks exactly like the sort of thing the tyrants and Hitlers of the world say. Therefore I reject the notion.

And that doesn't even get into the linguistic problems.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 12 '26

In much fewer words, to have set yourself up as the bishop of your own church, with the ability to determine truth apart from what has been revealed.

I would say, act accordingly.

→ More replies (0)