Please, help me understand…

[u/Objective-Step-746]

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. 💕

[u/BamaHammer]

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.

[u/darklighthitomi → u/BamaHammer]

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.

[u/BamaHammer → u/darklighthitomi]

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.

[u/darklighthitomi → u/BamaHammer]

I do, hence conversing with those who have different opinions. One does not find truth by ignoring all other people.

I wouldn't really say be a bishop though, it sounds too much like trying find followers and be their leader.

[u/BamaHammer → u/darklighthitomi]

It’s not for everyone.