All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Why are Christians allowed to eat shellfish but not allowed to have sex before marriage?

Here’s a wonderful article from Peter Saunders.

The challenge:

An argument frequently advanced by those attempting to defend homosexual practice is that Christians ‘cherry pick’ the commands in the Bible – that is, they chose to emphasise some commands while ignoring others.

The Old Testament may forbid homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:2; 20:13) but it also forbids eating seafood without fins and scales (Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9, 10).

So how can Christians then justify upholding laws on sexual morality whilst at the same time ignoring the food laws from the very same books of the Bible? Why may they eat shellfish but not be allowed to have sex outside marriage? Isn’t this inconsistent and hypocritical?

The solution is that God enters into “covenants” with his people, and the terms of those covenants change.

Especially dietary laws:

The answer to this question lies in an understanding of biblical covenants.

A covenant is a binding solemn agreement made between two parties. It generally leaves each with obligations. But it holds only between the parties involved.

There are a number of biblical covenants: Noahic, Abrahamic, Sinaitic (Old), Davidic and New.

Under the Noahic covenant, which God made with all living human beings (Genesis 9:8-17), people were able to eat anything:

‘Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’ (Genesis 9:3).

But under the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant, which God made with the nation of Israel, people were able to eat certain foods, but not others.

Jesus clearly created a new covenant with his followers, where the dietary laws are lifted:

Jesus said that he had come to fulfil the ‘Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 5:17; Luke 24:44). He would establish this new covenant with new laws, with himself as high priest based on his own sacrificial death on the cross.

This new covenant would completely deal with sin (Hebrews 10:1-18) and protect all those who put their faith in him from God’s wrath and judgement…

[…]‘In the same way, after the supper (Jesus) took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you”’ (Luke 22:20). ‘…we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Hebrews 10:10)

People would come under the protection of this new covenant, not by virtue of belonging to the nation of Israel, but through faith in Christ. In fact the function of the Old Testament Law (Sinaitic covenant) was to point to Christ as its fulfilment.

[…]So what then did Christ say about foods? He pronounced all foods clean for his followers to eat:

‘ “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?  For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them.  For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder,  adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.  All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:18-23)

Jesus was making that point that under the new covenant God required purity of the heart. Internal thoughts and attitudes were as important as external actions.

Food is OK for Christians, but sexual immorality – which includes premarital sex and adultery – are NOT OK for Christians.

I think sometimes when you are talking to people whose motivation is just to get rid of any objective moral law entirely, they tend to ask questions without really wanting a good answer. This is especially true when it comes to the morality of sex. They ask the question not to get an answer, but to justify getting rid of the moral rules governing sexuality. The answers are there for people who are willing to respect God in their decision-making to find. The answers are not found only by people who have a reason to not want to find them.

In case you’re wondering, I am one of those Christian men who takes chastity seriously. Marriage is about having a close connection with your spouse. Sure, I could break the rules and have a lot of fun now. A lot of Christians have a hard time turning down fun. But when I look at Jesus, I don’t see a man who is pursuing fun and thrills. I see a man who sees a need and then sacrifices his own interests to rescue others from peril.

Can taxpayers trust federal law enforcement to adhere to “the rule of law”?

I don’t know if people in federal law enforcement are familiar with the concept of the rule of law. It’s an important pillar of Western civilization, that teaches that everyone should be equal before the law. We want federal law enforcement to believe that, and defend that. But in a Democrat party administration, it doesn’t seem like they understand it. Let’s take a look at some evidence.

This article from Matt Walsh was published in Daily Wire. He’s going to contrast a Democrat meme poster with a Republican meme poster, and their punishments.

Here’s a Democrat meme maker telling Republicans to vote one day after the 2016 election day:

November 8th, 2016 was Election Day… that morning, a Left-wing activist named Kristina Wong decided to play a practical joke on all these Election Day voters. She went on Twitter, writing, “Hey Trump Supporters! Skip poll lines at #Election2016 and TEXT in your vote! Text votes are legit. Or vote tomorrow on Super Wednesday!”

Wong also uploaded this video on Twitter, telling Trump supporters once again that Election Day, in reality, was on November 9th — a day later than the actual Election Day.

That video is still available on Kristina Wong’s Twitter feed.

Matt Walsh notes that “the DOJ never charged Kristina Wong with any crime”.

And here’s a Republican meme maker telling Democrats to vote one day after the 2016 election day:

 On social media, [Douglass] Mackey used the online alias of “Ricky Vaughn.” And exactly one week before Kirstina Wong posted her meme on Twitter, Douglass Mackey posted this meme…

As the image reads: “Avoid the line. Vote from home.” Douglass Mackey posted this image on social media a full week before Election Day. At the time he posted this on his Twitter account, Mackey’s profile picture depicted a man in a MAGA hat wearing a Bane mask. So it was not exactly a credible announcement about the upcoming election. Nor was it trying to be.

At the time, everyone recognized this. More than four years went by, and no one said a word about it.

Then, in late January 2021 — just a week after Joe Biden was inaugurated, and his handlers took control of the federal government and the DOJ — everything changed. Douglass Mackey was suddenly hit with federal charges.

So, the Democrat meme maker got no charges, but the Republican meme maker got charges. And worse, the Republican meme maker got a federal prison sentence:

The Biden DOJ put Douglass Mackey on trial, more than a half-decade after his allegedly illegal memes.

[..][P]rosecutors never produced a single piece of evidence to prove that a single vote was actually lost due to Mackey’s meme. The jury did not hear from a single witness who testified that they texted their vote and then didn’t vote for real because of it. In other words, there was never any evidence, or any reason to believe, that any actual real world harm was caused by this meme.

[…]Nothing happened. There was no harm done. And yet, predictably, Mackey was convicted and the other day he was sentenced by this federal judge to seven months in prison.

Matt notes that this is not how federal law enforcement treats Democrats who commit much worse crimes:

To put that sentence in context, seven months is longer time in prison than a BLM rioter received in 2020 for threatening to murder a police officer with an AR-15. That officer was guarding a courthouse that the rioters were setting on fire. But this rioter, named Dakota Means, was sentenced to probation, meaning no time in prison whatsoever. Dakota Means went on to murder his infant child.

As horrifying as that story is, there are many more like it. Pretty much every BLM terrorist from 2020 received a lighter sentence than Douglass Mackey did for posting a meme.

Now, just this week, secular left protesters invaded the Capitol in what can only be described as a literal “insurrection”. Will these literal insurrectionists be given 20-year prison sentences? They did much more than move a barrier.

Matt predicts that they won’t be punished at all:

The other day, pro-Hamas protesters stormed a Senate office building, demanding a ceasefire in the Middle East. They obstructed lawmakers on their way to work. They prevented media reports from taking place. It was an insurrection.

Not a single one of those rioters will be placed in solitary confinement by Joe Biden’s DOJ. They won’t face 20-year prison sentences. Just like the women who stormed Capitol buildings during the Kavanaugh hearings, none of these pro-Hamas degenerates will face any consequences whatsoever.

Is Matt Walsh right? Time will tell. But just make sure that you vote in 2024, and make sure that you get all of your family and friends to vote, too. Now is the time to keep them informed about news stories like this one, so that they understand what’s at stake. We’ve produced a generation of poorly-educated, immoral, secular left fascists who don’t even understand the meaning of “rule of law” – or any other basic legal concepts. And sadly, they’ve found their way into government, and into federal law enforcement. We’re paying them to be stupid and evil. Maybe we need better people?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tells legislators: no breaks until school choice is law

I like to monitor all the best governors, just in case I decide to switch states. Obviously, DeSantis is up there, but what about Texas governor Greg Abbott? He likes to fight, too. And he’s willing to make Democrats miserable in order to get what he wants.

Here’s a story from The Federalist:

Historically, Texas has painfully lagged in school choice programs, resembling more of a blue state than its Republican trifecta. Currently, the only avenues of school choice in Texas are within the public system: charter schools and magnet schools, as well as inter-district and intra-district enrollment avenues. School choice programs that allow students to move outside the public education system are nonexistent.

But Abbott has committed to changing that. He’s calling for universal education savings accounts (ESAs), which would grant K-12 students statewide access to taxpayer funding for other selected educational avenues.

The Texas Legislature returned to Austin for a third special session on Oct. 9. Abbott made it clear that it is time for Texas to pass school choice. If legislators cannot get it passed this session, then he’ll bring them back immediately for another session. “I can play this game longer than they can play this game,” he said about the legislature.

A lot of Republicans actually are very leftist on education issues. They don’t want parents having more control. They think that government knows best about what children should learn.

Look:

Republicans who represent rural areas in the House of Representatives blocked school choice from passing in the spring legislative session.

Kim Reynolds is also doing a great  job as governor of Iowa, and Abbott is stealing her ideas:

Abbott is also prepared to utilize an effective approach that Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds employed in 2022. When Republican legislators opposed school choice in her state, she worked to get them voted out of office. The tactic is well-timed with Texas primary elections next spring.

This is what Texas conservatives are trying to pass:

Texas state Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, introduced Senate Bill 1, named the Texas Education Freedom Act, on Oct. 9, the day the session kicked off. The bill passed through the committee on Oct. 13 with a vote of 18-13. It has now moved to the Texas House.

The bill, if the state house passes it, would establish an education savings account program in Texas. Families would receive $8,000 per student in taxpayer funds that they could use on various educational expenses, including accredited private school tuition, textbooks, tutoring, transportation, and educational therapies.

School choice is really important for Christians. We need to have the ability to put our money into schools that work for us. What we don’t want is to pay our money first, then hope for the best. It’s amazing to me how many Christians trust a secular government to provide them with health care, education, etc. after they pay up front. Keep your money in your pocket until you find something that works for you!