Hutchinson Leader - Faith - Comments

I will answer the questions

Charlie Maricle — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:33:50 -0500

I will answer the questions in the last portion of this post since I believe the rest has been addressed at a previous time or would lead to a very skinny dialogue that will be had at a less-skinny time.

First, I think everyone will agree the standard for proving existence is based upon the item to be proven. For example, I prove fireflies exist much differently than I prove Julius Caesar existed? Therefore, since I cannot prove Caesar existed through visual, physical or entomological evidence, I must find other evidence. Now I am correlating the way I prove Caesar exists and the way I prove God exists to a certain extent. The acceptable proof of both are in historical writings. However, the historical evidence that has been given to prove God’s existence has been relegated to religious babblings and lore. Interestingly the same sources that relegate that evidence to subjective religious faith, will objectively define gravity as factually existing. Do we have any visual, verbal, odious, or tangible evidence that a thing called gravity exists? Can you bring me a pile of gravity to prove gravity’s existence? Can you call gravity on the phone so I can talk to it to know that it exists? Yet, the argument is, we know gravity exists because we can see the effects of gravity. We see the apple fall from the tree so we know something caused it to go down instead of up. Why is that standard not available to God? Why am I not allowed to say, a law of gravity exists and since I know laws are not available without a law-giver, I must say something caused the law of gravity? Why are people allowed to say, gravity exists because its effects are seen but God does not exist because the effects attributable to Him we have decided to attribute to something else? It sounds like a subjective standard of existence established only by those who want the standard to meet or enhance their rejection of God.

How have my comments lead to

Charlie Maricle — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 22:13:16 -0500

How have my comments lead to a God created by people? I will admit that the Bible’s message is very anti-humanistic but it is not self-loathing because there is an answer which completes the inadequacies of the self. I am one of those that want to “live in their society, get along with their neighbors, enjoy their family and friends, and avoid pain as much as possible. However, humans are highly unqualified to do those things on their own. If we were truly capable of achieving all these things, would we not have done it by now? If we can not do it, should we not seek assistance to achieve them? Despite the effectiveness of the Constitution there is still pain and people not getting along with one another. However, I will say that most people are selfish enough to only be concerned if they have those things you mentioned.

I am not saying that people yearn to do evil. I cannot judge intentions. I am saying people do evil, which is irrefutable. Punishment is the only man-made force available to keep people from doing destructive things. Education, rehabilitation and any other psychotherapeutic endeavor has failed to prevent people from doing destructive things. Your classification of punishment is accurate if we are speaking only in natural terms. We as humans must place crimes into degrees of punishment to place a greater deterrence on those more serious crimes. However, if there is punishment there is a crime, whether it be child molestation or smoking weed. So, whether we want to say one is more serious than the other does not mean it broke a law more than the other. So if God has laws and we have broken them, which everyone does because no one is perfect, how is it wrong to say God has the right to classify us as criminal? You conveniently ignored the answer to the entire problem. God made a way of escape from this difficult classification. Yes it takes surrender, but haven’t you already surrendered your rights to the good of everyone else. You are willing to inconvenience yourself for people but not for God who is infinitely better than any person. Even some of those you are sacrificing for will disregard the “good of everyone” and go their own way. But God who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were “classified as criminals” gave us the grace to be saved. This is our hope and answer. However, the natural system has no intrinsic hope or answer to change the individual to regard the good of others.

I will refrain from beginning an argument on evolution here due the concern of someone getting cutoff by our “virtual filibuster”. However, I will ask these questions: If the evolutionary principles are so easily understandable, how come interpretation is needed? Who established the evolutionary principles and with what authority did they establish them? How come scientists are allowed interpretation of evidence but Christians are not? And how do the “variations/mutations” know what is beneficial so that those are replicated and not the unbeneficial ones? I don’t expect an answer to these because this discussion would take us severely off the current topic.

However, I will ask for an answer to these questions: What is the implication of your worldview? If it is right, shouldn’t everyone espouse that belief? If the belief is not for everyone, are you not excluding some from being right? You seem to be arguing the very point that religious people are wrong to believe they are right. If they are wrong there must be a right. However, if right has been relegated to whatever each person believes, everyone else is wrong because they don’t believe just like that person. There is your bleak view of life. Bleakness only comes from an absence of hope. Hope is the expectation one has from faith. But if we have faith in nothing, hope dissipates and bleakness is the result. Therefore, while on the surface my view may seem bleak the reality is the answer in my view is exceedingly above whatever could be imagined.

While I appreciate your respect for my intelligence, I would trade it instantly to know that your heart has turned to the saving grace of God.

and skinnier

darwinball — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:19:18 -0500

and skinnier

Yeah this does get skinnier

darwinball — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:18:41 -0500

Yeah this does get skinnier

Atheism is just the

darwinball — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:17:50 -0500

Atheism is just the rejection of theistic claims. There is no dogma or handbook. Many atheists hold a view that the observable natural world is all there is, but that isn't required. There are no atheist handbooks that are similar to sacred scripture; for me the closest thing to a sacred text is the US Constitution, a secular agreement for self-government and protection of liberty.

Evolution is the change of living things over time, and does not address the origins of life. Most naturalists or materialists believe life on Earth started through abiogenesis, which has been partially replicated in laboratories, or through extraterrestrial matter coming to Earth.

The creation of the planet Earth along with the others is thought to be from the explosion of supernovas which form stars like our sun and the planets around them. We can see this process happening in other areas of the universe right now.

The only randomness in evolution is where mutations occur, but sometimes these mutations prove to be beneficial and are replicated. This is natural selection, which is theorized to be the mechanism for evolution.

I would ask those who think a god or gods exist: How do we know whether or not something exists? Do fireflies exist? We have very good visual, physical, entymological evidence that they do. Do fairies exist? Many people used to think so, but a lack of tangible, physical evidence has led most to abandon that position. How do the standards that we all use to determine "existence" apply to unseen, unspeaking, non-odorous, untouchable deities?

See....it just keeps getting

fiscallyconservative — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:56:38 -0500

See....it just keeps getting skinnier and skinnier... like infinity and beyond!!!! :)

DB, when you look in your

fiscallyconservative — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:54:24 -0500

DB, when you look in your atheist (and evolution) handbook, what does it say about the fundamental building block of evolution? How was the first "cell" created? Did it just magically appear? For that matter, how was Earth created? Did it "evolve" from something like Mars and eventually became supportive of life? Did aliens drop off a flask of fertilized water? My scientific brain can understand the evolution of animals within specific species, etc. (hybridization, etc.) but I've never been able to grasp the theory that we (the human race) could "evolve" from a spec of dust to our current form. There are just too many complexities for chance and evolution to address. The "randomness" of evolution just doesn't cut it for me. My vote goes for the creation of our world and I have to thank God for that! In my mind, there is much more logical support for that theory than that of an evolutionary path. Unless you believe in aliens...

Plus, if I keep responding to this thread, it will get so skinny that nothing else can be said on this topic... that will make a bunch of people happy I'm sure! I call it the "squeeze play". It is my virtual version of a filibuster...

Wow. This post seems

darwinball — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:16:22 -0500

Wow. This post seems designed to confirm all the criticisms of Christianity at once. Your system seems to be a god created by people, and highly misanthropic people at that! The very idea that babies are born evil and need to be saved by submitting their will to a supernatural authority is anti-humanistic and just plain self-loathing. Most people just want to live in their society, get along with their neighbors, enjoy their family and friends, and avoid pain as much as possible. No supernatural authority figures required. People have the power to do this on their own. Our own nation, established in a completely god-free document, the Constitution, has functioned pretty well with a mix of guaranteed individual liberties tempered with government authority (of the people).

Driver's education classes don't teach people to avoid getting tickets, they teach how to operate a motor vehicle safely and responsibly. You seem to think that everyone is just yearning to do evil, destructive things if not for the fear of punishment. I can't deny that people defy rules, but as stated before, the consequences of some actions are much greater than others. I wouldn't put all occasional speeders or weed-smokers in the same category of evil as child-rapers or doctor assassins.

Yes, atheism is a broad category: the rejection of supernatural claims about the way the Universe works. There is no dogma, no sacred text, no unifying issues.

Evolution, however, is a well-evidenced scientific fact. The theory that natural selection is the mechanism for evolution is well established also and is not too difficult to understand. It requires interpretation of actual physical evidence, but is by no means as complicated or contradictory as the Bible texts.

Many Christians seem able to compartmentalize their brains to deal rationally with some aspects of life while maintaining the idea of supernaturalism with respect to some issues. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is a superlative scientist at work, following nothing but observable reality; but when he leaves the lab, he's an evangelical Christian. I don't understand such a bifurcated life, but it seems to work for some.

Evolutionary ethics are similar to evolution in general: there are broad variations. The variations (mutations) that are beneficial get replicated in future generations, resulting in changes over time.

I may seem to espouse an overall theme of "I'm right, religious people are wrong." I'm not really that arrogant. I simply want everyone to examine their own ideas and think about the implications of their world-view. As a person who has never really believed in the supernatural (other than a brief period of fascination with UFO abductions, Bermuda Triangle mysteries, etc. in my teen years) I don't quite understand the process of believing something intangible. Do you decide to pretend to believe until it becomes "second nature" or does belief suddenly hit you like a bolt? You are clearly a very intelligent person and I have gained a lot of respect for you through this conversation. Still I must wonder whether your bleak view of human nature is a product of your Christian thought or if it's the other way around.

I agree that people should

Charlie Maricle — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:39:19 -0500

I agree that people should think critically about their decisions. However, if this critical thinking brings us to a divine answer why is that answer discounted? If we refute “divine or supernatural guidance” as noncritical or unreal, don’t we prejudice ourselves against a possible answer to all the questions we have? I also “value the freedom of people to practice and live their beliefs to the fullest extent possible”, however, as your stop sign example shows us, sometimes that answer is not something everyone will agree with or find convenient. However, I would argue that all laws, from both the legislature and courts, are based upon religious beliefs whether they be Christian, atheistic, or altruistic. Yes, let people think about what they believe and if that reasonable process leads them to Christ, that decision is just as critically valid as yours.

Perhaps the Bible does seem “broad and disjointed” to you. I believe it safe to say that evolution and atheism seem the same way to some also. I will say that I was raised within a highly religious structure, i.e. regular church attendance, religious based schooling. However, I walked away from all those things. I attended a state school nearby and began to develop a thinking much like yours. I began to doubt the reasonableness and critical thinking ability of Christianity. I was raised to live by faith alone to the effect of alienating and even discounting the mind as almost evil. However, through my own studies and input from sources like Ravi Zacharias, I have found that following Christ not only saves my soul it touches my mind as well. When Jesus freed me from sin, He also freed my mind to completely understand how following Him is the only belief that makes sense. From there, my experience of peace, joy and miraculous healings in mine and my family's lives further cement the reality of Jesus to me.

If evolutionary ethics only accounts for some human behavior, it fails to account for all the variations which exist. Therefore it comes up short in certain instances. If it fails to cover everything, why would I aspire to believe that it is the answer? If the answer is "still to come" because the evolutionary process is not complete, why are the complexities of the Bible seen as "nonsense stories" simply because you don't understand them? But if it is filled with truth instead of stories it can be taken as an objective source for morality. Then everyone can be confident in the stability God has provided for us. In your system criminals may be classified as outliers only if we have a very strict definition of criminal. If we classify a criminal as anyone who breaks the law, everyone who has gone over the speed limit qualifies, whether they are caught or not. This means that criminals are not outliers but really the “mainstream”. If the mainstream is suddenly found to have switched places with the outliers, your social science has suddenly been flipped on its head. However, if we place a different definition on the word "criminal" then justice is skewed because our definition of crime is inconsistent. With this inconsistency the best social scientists can produce is circular reasoning without answers. However, since everyone is initially considered criminal in God's system, we are able to have confidence in and receive His answer to this criminality and accept Jesus as the only one who can help us out of our life of crime.

Neither the law nor the stop sign are set up because everyone understands or agrees with them. If you take the authority of the law away from the stop sign what do you have? A nice, shiny sign no one pays attention to. If people were not concerned with getting a ticket, which is means of punishment only authority possesses, no one would pay attention to any traffic control sign. This is evidenced by the training that goes into driver's education. Your philosophy of this social behavior is utopian at best.

I am interested in

darwinball — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 10:44:03 -0500

I am interested in Christianity because of its profound effect on the history of western civilization and the effect it has today on my American culture. I think that people should strive toward critical thinking and consider observable reality instead of divine or supernatural guidance when they make decisions about life on Earth. I also question Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Jaenism, etc. Of course I value the freedom of people to practice and live their beliefs to the fullest extent possible, but do not think laws should be based upon religious beliefs. I want people to think about what they believe and their reasons for believing.

I "pick on" the Bible because it seems so broad and disjointed that the contradictions and nonsense stories render it useless as a guide to morality. Your faith seems very strong as does your confidence that you have pecked the right one. I admire your certainty but don't understand how you picked your religion from the selection that exists.

Evolutionary ethics only account for some of human behavior. The rest is from our family, society, teachers, etc. Criminals are outliers in our society, not the mainstream. There have always been wide variations in human behavior and social science tends to follow broad generalizations in the mainstream.

The stop sign is not effective because of the authority behind it. It's effective because most people recognize the importance to everyone's safety (including their own) to have a system of traffic control.

I understand your use of the

Charlie Maricle — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:54:43 -0500

I understand your use of the stop sign, but even in your explanation you require an authority figure, “the citizens through their elected officials”. However, if I were to make up a new sign and throw it up at the intersection outside my house, should anyone obey it? I don’t think anyone would because 1) there is no authority behind it and 2) everyone would have a different interpretation for what it means. This is like our trying to humanly reason moral questions. It is impossible for us to reason among ourselves because no one is an authority on the matter. God alone holds the authority on morality because He is the only objective party available. Also, I am not claiming we need divine input to install traffic signs; however we do need divine input on questions of a more moral nature like homosexuality. It is interesting you are prefectly content with a man-made stop sign being a behavior control but not okay with a God-made behavior control.

If morality is a biological underpinning of humanity why am I still teaching my children kindness? Why do we still have to teach anyone moral concepts? If everyone has morality, crime would be either nonexistent or on its way to extinction due to our evolution. If our closest primate relatives took years to evolve into us and morality evolved with them, why do we still deal with immorality at all. You cannot say it is a religious construct because you already have argued it is an evolutionary process. I think the scientists might have got this one wrong.

Maybe the explanation I gave is a pick and choose gospel. But it is not me doing the picking, it is God. If His plan is the way it is why would I say, "God you can't do that because it might look picky"? It's His plan, just like it's the "elected officials" plan to put up whatever traffic control devices are needed. I don't have to like it or understand it but hey, that's how it is. Yes, the 10 Commandments, creation, flood, exodus and events at Sodom are important. I have never said they weren’t. I have argued that your fixation with them renders Jesus Christ useless. If we were all totally able to fulfill the law, ordinances, commandments and anything else you have read about, by ourselves, Jesus is not needed. God planned it this way so that we would be drawn to Him and would see that we are useless without Him. Instead humanistic thinking has taken over our lives so that instead we believe that any God that is must update His methodology to meet my own personal demands and if He doesn’t then He isn’t real. Sounds like your “inconvenience” is outweighing your “concern for the death and damage that would occur” in a life “without controls”.

Now, your Bible passages are interesting. Your seed reference seems to be taken out of context the entire verse reads, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” So my thinking is “different kinds of animals” means sheep and horses. If I continue with this logic I can identify God’s intention of not mixing corn and potatoes. This is significantly different than crossing different types of the same kind of seed. But Deuteronomy 22:29 is exactly as you say. Yet if we take that verse without understanding the society during that portion of history and reading a few verses up we lack a context. Deuteronomy 22:25-29 says, “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” What's interesting is that He clarifies in verse 25, that the woman cried out but does not give that designation to the woman in verses 28-29. . Also, interesting is the idea that perhaps this is a preventative measure. Perhaps the guy would think twice about raping her if he knew for the rest of his life he would be with her. Of course, we understand that during this part of history women had no rights. But your desire to chastise God for not jerking the Israelites into 20th century thinking of equality seems a bit hypocritical when you are saying the this “omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God” shouldn’t be telling people who they should have a relationship with.

I am interested as to why an atheist would have an opinion about Christianity at all. Why study something you don’t believe in? It seems by giving it time you are giving it validity. I don’t need to study the other religions to believe that they have as full a conviction as mine. I simply have found the answer and want them to know Him too.

The stop sign is a societal,

darwinball — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 06:49:38 -0500

The stop sign is a societal, communal model of behavior control. The citizens through their elected officials have decided to place a traffic control device because its utility far outweighs the inconvenience and restriction of freedom. Most people will conform because they recognize the value of the signs purpose, not because of fear of punishment. Absolutely no supernatural beings are required in this process.

By evolution of morality I didn't mean changes we can observe in the short term. I was referring to evolution through natural selection, the biological underpinnings of morality. Humans and our closest primate relatives have social behaviors, such as heirarchies, altruism, sense of fairness, competitiveness, and kindness/love programmed into our brains. A theist might say God put them there, while evolutionary biologists trace their development alongside the physical evolution of creatures.

The explanation about the "Law of Moses" still sounds like a "pick and choose" scenario. Aren't the ten commandments (whichever version you choose) still considered important for Christians to follow today? I have read the passages about "God's law written in ordinance" vs. "God's law written in stone" Does this mean that the stone tablet version (second set) that Moses carved is the only Old Testament principle that's valid? The creation story, the flood, exodus, Sodom...not important?

The Bible passages I asked about were Deuteronomy 22:29 (if a man rapes a virgin he shall pay 50 shekels to her father and marry her for life) and Leviticus 19:19 and Deut. 22:9 (do not mix seeds). Maybe the one about crops is a warning about genetic engineering, although I think hybrid sweet corn is awesome. The one about being forced to marry your rape victim, however, is just disgusting and unconscionable for a God or a person to impose on anyone, anywhere at any time.

An omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should have been able to write a book that any human could understand and if the book becomes filled with contradiction and commandments that are only for some other people at some other time He or She could certainly provide an updated text to clear things up.

I think that if you are interested in seeing Christianity as an atheist does, you should pick up some texts from competing religions, study them thoroughly, talk to believers in these other faiths, see how convinced they are that they hold the truth...and see if you still disbelieve in their Gods and religions. I think you are an atheist with respect to all gods except the Biblical Jaweh one.

It seems as though you are

Charlie Maricle — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:41:07 -0500

It seems as though you are still failing to grasp the entirety of Bible. The Old Testament rules were for the Jewish people to follow for the specific purpose of avoiding co-mingling with the other nations and becoming like them, i.e. worshipping other gods, following other laws. This was to be an example to those who accepted Jesus in the New Testament to not live like the rest of the world lives but live according to Christ’s standard. This might be where the confusion is. Before Christ, the Law of Moses was the standard for everyone who wanted to follow God. When Christ came, He replaced the Law of Moses as that standard, not rendering it useless or void but rather replacing human actions as Savior. Now He is our “way, truth, and life”. This has nothing to do with tradition or subjectivity but rather a complete acceptance and understanding of God’s true plan.

Again, your fixation on the dietary portion of the Old Testament is misguided. The rest of the “rules” you refer to have no reference associated with them so I will refrain from answering until you provide those.

The idea that morality is evolving is ludicrous. Morality has degraded right before our eyes in the past 20 – 50 years. Even non-Christian sources of news have commented on this occurrence. Still, no human’s decision-making abilities alone will obtain the gifts of God offered in the Bible. Therefore, if we rely on ourselves the best that can happen is we struggle in this life with no hope for anything else.

Now, your logic for abandoning scripture is a clear indication that human rational can be the authority for moral behavior. Let’s use your traffic light example. What if someone refuses to acknowledge that “inconvenience”? What if they continuously speed right through the intersection? Do we then say, “Well, they have their reasons for doing what they do. We can’t definitively say they are wrong because maybe they were raised differently, or maybe they interpret the sign differently”? No, instead, we say, “This is the law. A respected authority has set it up with a single purpose. Your opinion about it doesn’t matter and we don’t care that you are inconvenienced.”

If we assign this logic to morality, human’s are cast aside as the authority because of the discrepancy of opinions. Meaning since we all interpret morality, our stop sign, differently we cannot be the final say as to the definition of that sign. A higher authority must be the one who sets the sign in place and says “your needs are subjugated” to my definition of life and safety that would not occur “without controls” despite the fact you are inconvenienced. Your own logic points us toward God because He is the one higher authority on morals that exists. He is the person who sets up the sign. Without Him, the sign holds no significance to anyone.

Thanks for the explanation

darwinball — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 06:20:51 -0500

Thanks for the explanation and references to specific quotations. I've never been able to figure out where folks got the idea that some Biblical rules were not important anymore. Still, if the rules were not important, why would God have told scribes to write them in the Bible in the first place? Is the message really that if the rule is not in your tradition or if you don't consider something unclean then it's okay? Sounds very subjective. Dietary guidelines are just an easy example of Bible rules that seem archaic or silly. How about mixing fibers or crops, beating your slaves but not to the extent that they die within three days, or the rule that if you rape a woman you must pay her father and marry her? Are there similar exemptions?

To figure out how to behave, I am using my own rational judgments, informed by the wisdom of previous generations and the morality that has evolved in humans. The existing philosophies and legal codes and my own observable realities all inform my decision-making.

Consequences, narrowly defined as punishment through imprisonment, do not control behavior perfectly. It would be silly to say the threat of incarceration is the only consequence considered by criminals. They may also be considering the consequence that they will be unable to afford the drugs they are addicted to if they don't steal some money, for example.

I consider consequences of policies in terms of what is likely to bring the most good to the most people while causing the least harm to others. A busy intersection needs a stop sign or traffic light even though it will inconvenience the people who need to stop. Their needs are subjugated to our concern for the death and damage that would occur at the intersection without controls. See? No need to consult any scripture.

Whether I use yours or my

Charlie Maricle — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 22:22:19 -0500

Whether I use yours or my own "rational judgments" I am doomed to failure because I only have limited understanding. Observable reality will only cause people to draw conclusions based upon selfish desires or flawed thinking. If consequences caused right and wrong behavior then there would be no repeat criminals. If humans could make an accurate judgment based upon the real world, our judicial system would be flawless. But our decision-making skills stink and our government, both past and present, is a prime example.

But since you like the idea of "rational judgments", let's use those to critique your "Old Testament rules" issue.

First, I never said all Old Testament rules are void. I have only counter-argued your premise that since Christians don’t follow the dietary guidelines of the Old Testament then we are subjectively following the “rules” we want and telling others to as well. However, when you read the statements by Jesus in Matthew 15:3-10, you see that He says the food we eat is not what causes defilement in our life but the words we speak. Well, if those Old Testament rules were that if we eat pork we sin, then Jesus was in direct contradiction to God’s commands. However, we see the context He is speaking in when He has already stated in verse 6, “Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition”. We then move to Peter’s experience in Acts 10, where God commands him to eat things that, as a devote Jew, he is forbidden to eat by this same God. Is God confused? According to you, yes. But when we go on to see that the only way God was going to be able to reach the Roman soldier Peter would later preach to with His gospel was to break Peter’s staunch stance against mingling with those things and people considered “unclean”. Paul expounds upon this in Romans 14:14 by saying, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” This, of course, was pertinent for Paul to say because some Romans were being told they had to follow all those Old Testament rules to be saved. But this obsession with what to eat and what not to eat was taking the focus off of living for Jesus and putting it on living for rules. Paul sums up the whole issue in Romans 14:20, “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” Therefore, I have the ability to justly say based upon the literal Biblical scripture, I have not sinned because I ate a hot dog today, but those who practice homosexuality have sinned.