Originally posted by Yorzhik
Can you give an example wherein the act is not always wrong. For instance, prostitution is always wrong, and sacrificing to idols is always wrong. However, celebrating the anniversary of someone's birth is not always wrong.
You've not being careful here, Yorzhik. The answer to your question is within the very examples you gave.
- Sexual behavior is not always wrong. But prostitution is.
- Killing animals for food is not always wrong. But sacrificing to idols is.
- Celebrating the anniversary of someone's birth is not always wrong. But celebrating Christ-Mass is.
Originally posted by Yorzhik
We first have to discern whether the celebration is religious or not (by your accounting). I'm sure there is an example, I just cannot think of one.
Exactly. My wife and I grew up celebrating Thanksgiving in a completely non-religious context. It was "turkey day" and "Lions-Cowboys day" as far as we were concerned. Historically, we thought it wasn't a giving of thanks to God, but to the Indians for their help and friendship in the early days of this country. I thought it was as innocuous as the 4th of July.
When we moved to Pittsburgh and began to realize that the vast majority of the homeschoolers we associate with are hardcore ceremonialists, we started to re-think it. Our church friends who do not celebrate thanksgiving had told us about their experiences with these types of people. We had never encountered them before. Having seen now firsthand, and living in a community that is full-bore religious ceremony about thanksgiving, we decided that we wanted nothing to do with it, to "abstain from all appearance of evil."
Originally posted by Yorzhik
The problem is that in and of itself, there is no prohibition against religious celebrations.
That's incorrect. In and of itself, religious celebrations are emphatically, unequivocally, and strictly forbidden.
Originally posted by Yorzhik
The problem is that in and of itself, there is no prohibition against religious celebrations. Just like there is no prohibition against eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Yorzhik, your statement equates "eating meat sacrificed to idols" with "religious celebrations." You said, "Just like ...", but it is NOT "just like". I eat the leftover Christmas cookies that people bring to work after the holidays.
That is "just like" eating meat sacrificed to idols. Celebrating Christmas is "just like" sacrificing to idols.
Originally posted by Yorzhik
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
People keep quoting this as if we should just throw all prohibitions out the window. Is it OK to steal if you're not under the law? Is it OK to commit adultery if you're not under the law? If not, then neither is it OK to celebrate Christmas if you're not under the law.
Originally posted by Yorzhik
If we are not under the law, there is no reason for Paul to make up new laws for us to be under.
Paul didn't make them up, Yorzhik. These laws were held in silence, kept absolutely secret from the foundation of the world, designed and reserved specifically for the Body of Christ. This cannot be missed. Please see the following references: Ro 11:25 16:25,26 1Co 2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16. Paul receved the laws of the Mystery directly from the risen and glorified Christ Himself, in an unprecedented manner, apart from angelic mediation, apart from ritual, ceremony, symbolism, and holiday. That's the point. The Body of Christ, of which Paul was the charter member, has a heavenly hope, not an earthly one (as Israel and the nations). Therefore, we have direct, unmediated access to the Godhead. For Israel, they had many mediators, many priests, many intermediary steps in their worship (ceremony, symbolism, etc.). For the Body of Christ, there is but one Mediator between God and man: Christ Jesus Himself.