Should Chick-Fil-A ban Menstruating women?

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

I see your point.
However when you get married by a jp or rep they do read you a certain set of words that pertain to GOD.
When you get married by a minister then e is usually a rep of the church and of the state.
The union i speak of would negate the need for vows and reps and only pertain to how long people live together and how many youngesters they are raising.Does that not solve our marriage problems that we are facing as a nation?

What LGBTQ want is Legal Government Marriage. There is no god in that.

You can speak of any union you want.

But until ALL have Legal Government Marriage - - - as it stands today - right now - - there is no Full Equality.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Awen24

...the problem with your OP is that you haven't rightly divided between Jewish and Christian text.

I don't think it matters who the passages are directed at. If menstruating women are unclean, they are unclean. I am not talking about laws, I am simply talking about the way God refers to menstruating women.

Why would anyone want to be near someone so clearly labelled unclean?

I understand the distinction in laws, which is why I have not really mentioned laws, but the fact remains God calls homosexual acts "abominations", and menstruating women "unclean", it matters not the race, religion, or nationality of the people involved, unclean is unclean.

Should the comments regarding putting to death homosexuals stand also, then?

"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Is it that we should accept the abomination part but not the putting to death part?

edit on 3-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

...it's been a while since this post, but it deserves a reply.
You state that you "understand the distinction in laws", but then show by the rest of your post that you don't. You say "it matters not the race, religion or nationality of the people involved, unclean is unclean". That's YOUR worldview, but it's not the worldview that the Bible espouses. We can argue all we like over whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong... but the point is that the Bible states that it is wrong (in both old and new testaments), and is logically consistent in doing so.

The command to put to death homosexuals was a command given to Israel, who were called upon by God to "separate themselves from the tribes around them" by being held to a much higher standard. This is consistent throughout the Old Testament. Israel was expected to remain holy and set apart for God. When they did so, things went well for them. When they did not, things went badly. Sometimes VERY badly (e.g being dragged into exile in Babylon, for example, which the prophets talk about constantly, and warned about constantly).

Israel was expected to follow those laws.

The Christian church is not.

The point is, the law given to Israel was not universal, nor was it binding for all time. You can argue from Scripture that the ten commandments ARE universal (and some Christians do); I have no problem with that. However, the OT contains 613 commandments, the majority of which are civil and religious law designed and written for Jewish life.

Let's drop back for a moment to menstruating women. They're said to be unclean during that time of their cycle in Levitical law. Why do you think that might be?
Do you think that women in 1500BC had tampons? Not so much.
This is why I say that the law was not binding for all time, nor was it universal. What the law accomplishes in 1500BC is to ensure the physical and spiritual purity of Israel. Many of the laws contained in Leviticus are for basic cleanliness and hygiene purposes.

Another important point that you've missed (and many Christians do, also) is the actual INTENT and purpose of the law. The law was not given to make man righteous. Neither Christians nor Jews ever got to heaven by following the ten commandments and the law. The book of Romans says that "when the law came, sin sprang to life, and I died." This is the point of the law. The law shows us that God's requirements in terms of holiness are absolutely, 100% impossible to keep. Each of us fails to uphold the righteous requirements of the law, every single day of our lives.

This is where Christ enters the picture. What the law could not accomplish, Christ did. The law points to the problem between man and God - an impossible gulf lies between the two, because man is inherently sinful, and God is inherently pure, and cannot have sin in His presence. Christ, on the other hand, solves the problem between man and God by dealing with that sin... for "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God."

Going to church and trying to live a good life doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonalds makes you a cheeseburger.

It's not about our holiness now. It's not about our purity. Isaiah says "all our righteousness is as filthy rags". The law is there to show us all that we can't meet God's standards.
Christ came to show us that God's standards were met... in Him... and then He died, bearing the judgement for our sin, to bridge that insurmountable gulf, and bring us to God.

...and that is why, unless reiterated in the NT, OT law no longer applies... because Jesus "took the penalty away, nailing it to His cross", and paid the price in blood for our inability to uphold that law. Forever.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by Awen24

 

To fill in the blanks here, the early church discussed the topic - "what laws should Christians follow?". The answer to that question was as follows:
1. do not eat food that has been sacrificed to idols
2. do not eat the meat or blood of strangled animals
3. abstain from sexual immorality

I am pretty sure those arent the only laws, but for the sake of argument I will assume they are.

What about the Ten Commandments? Do Cristians still have to follow those? Are those three the only way to get into hell now? What about the rest of the teachings of Christ? Do we consider them null and void or are they just guidelines to follow "when we feel like it"?

Those are the only laws required by Christians to be followed.
You can read about the discussion itself in the book of Acts, chapter 15... which you can find here: Acts 15, New King James version

Regarding the Ten Commandments, many Christians argue that those laws are eternal... and often, the reason argued is because they were the only laws (out of the 613 given) that were written by the hand of God Himself.

Regarding the teachings of Christ - yes, those are to be followed, certainly... however, the distinction is that those teachings are not laws... but teachings. In fact, Jesus' teachings are more difficult to follow than many of the laws. Jesus said "you have heard it said, 'do not commit adultery'; but I tell you, if you even look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery in your heart".

The law didn't pass away in Christ. He didn't destroy or nullify it; but rather, in His death, He satisfied all of the requirements of the law, in having lived a perfect life, and, more importantly, because He accomplished that which the law and the prophets all pointed toward. The Bible says "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins". All of the law and the prophets points toward Christ. For example, when Adam and Eve were sent out of the garden of Eden, they were no longer clothed in leaves, but in clothing. Who killed the animal to make that clothing? God Himself slew a lamb to make it. When Cain and Abel fought over their sacrifices, and Abel was slain, what was the issue? Abel brought the sacrifice God required (a lamb), Cain did not. There was nothing wrong with Cain's offering; but it was not the offering God required for sin. Likewise in Egypt, the blood of a lamb was painted across the lintels and posts of the doors of the Hebrews. Why? "Because the blood of Jesus covers over all sin" - thus the angel of death passed over the houses of the Hebrews, but slew the firstborn of Egypt. This picture goes on, and on, and on, all throughout Scripture.

One final example is Abraham and his son, Isaac. God called Abraham to offer Isaac to Him, by killing him on an altar. Abraham obeyed, knowing that God had promised that Isaac would have offspring as "countless as the stars in the sky"... and trusted that God could bring him back from the dead to fulfil that promise.

Yet, when Abraham went to the top of the mountain, Isaac said "where is the lamb, Father?" to which Abraham replied "God Himself will provide the sacrifice, my son."

When Abraham lifted the knife to kill his own son, God stopped him... and showed Abraham a substitute. That substitute, though, was not a lamb (which the precedent required), but a ram. Why?

...because God still planned to provide a lamb. Revelation refers to Jesus Christ as "the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world". In this way, in this sense, Jesus Christ is the fulfilment and the completion of the law. Those who follow Christ are purified not according to the requirements of the law, but according to the fulness of Christ. Jesus Christ is the eternal sacrifice, that washes away the sins of the world.

I hope that helps.

i asked this earlier. never got a response.

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by Awen24
Thus, unless a law is reiterated in the New Testament (God's stance on homosexuality is; Israel's law regarding menstruating women is not), it no longer applies.

so what is God's stance on homosexuality in the new testament?

reply to post by Annee


Ok lets say i'm driving a beaten down 1976 mustang that breaks down at every turn. Then someone offers me a new car that will be more reliable than what i have and i turn it down saying that i will not drive that new car until i get my p.o.s. is in working condition regardless of my ability to afford the cost involved in the repairs.

Would i have made a sensable decision in that case or would i be showing signs of ignorance?

You want to find equality in a system that you yourself say was born out of intolerance and ignorance.
There is a long bumpy road ahead of you but there is always time to change the road your on.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

Ok lets say i'm driving a beaten down 1976 mustang that breaks down at every turn.

NO - - let's just say: One group will never be able to tell another group - - Ha Ha - I'm married and you're not.

Or - - Ha Ha - I was married and you never will be.

Or - - Ha Ha - my marriage is real - - you'll never have that.

"Do you reject parts of Leviticus?

im sorry there has been a lot of thread covered lately AND i may have missed it but im curious about the above question myself and other parts of the bible.

how can christians on one end uphold or go by one part of the bible (in regards to what it appears to say about homosexuality TO THEM/ I know in the end it seems misinterpreted) and turn around and disregard other aspects of the bible as it relates to LEGALISM?

,,,,,,,,,,

reply to post by Annee


Angry annee dismissive of sense and driven by vengeance.
It has been great debating with you.
You are right and i am wrong.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

,,,,,,,,,,

first comment i see in the comment section there:


"In this case, "God Bless America" is actually code for "F*&k you , faggots!"


sadly, pretty spot on. im sorry but those people at chic fil hate are the kinds of christians Mahatmas Gandhi talks about.

im not sure why they are so blind to this? do they really see? or are they still blind? perhaps the republican right is blinding them from truly being loving christians.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Annee

 

Angry annee dismissive of sense and driven by vengeance.
It has been great debating with you.
You are right and i am wrong.

I've had this discussion before.

I've surmised people choose to see the point - - or they choose not to.

Originally posted by krossfyter
i asked this earlier. never got a response.

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by Awen24
Thus, unless a law is reiterated in the New Testament (God's stance on homosexuality is; Israel's law regarding menstruating women is not), it no longer applies.

so what is God's stance on homosexuality in the new testament?

Sorry, I missed this earlier.
There are essentially three passages that refer to homosexuality in the New Testament, which build on the statements in the Old.

in chronological order:

Romans 1:26-27, "For this reason, God gave them up to shameful pursuits. Even their women exchanged natural relations for that which is unnatural, and likewise men, having left the natural state with women, were inflamed with lust for one another: males with males, committing shameful acts, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was due."


1 Corinthians 1:9-10, "Do you not know that the unrighteousness and evildoers shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality..."

and

1 Timothy 1:9-10, which is essentially a repeat doctrinally of 1 Corinthians, "knowing and understanding this: that the law is not given for the righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly and the sinful, the irreverent and profane; for murderers of fathers and mothers, manslayers, whoremongers, and those who abuse themselves with men, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine..."



The basic biblical principle is this: "let testimony be established by two or three witnesses". This is a constant throughout the Bible. Wherever you're going to try to argue something one way or another, you have to have at least 2-3 verses that concur on the topic - and not a single verse (which would allow you to argue anything, out of context). The weight of NT scripture, plus the precedent of OT scripture (which, despite not being required to follow, still serves as precedent where continued observance is stated in the NT), shows a fairly simple truth: that God abhors homosexuality.

You'll find this also in the book of Revelation, where homosexuals are described as being outside of heaven and denied entry. To balance the debate, however, it's worth noting that homosexuality isn't described in terms that are any different to adulterers (those who have sex outside of marriage, or cheat on their wives/husbands), and are thrown into the same category as plenty of other sins.

The point is this. In God's eyes, homosexuality is sinful, and is equated with murder, and with adultery, and a number of other sins. Point being: God takes sin very seriously.

Originally posted by krossfyter

"Do you reject parts of Leviticus?

im sorry there has been a lot of thread covered lately AND i may have missed it but im curious about the above question myself and other parts of the bible.

how can christians on one end uphold or go by one part of the bible (in regards to what it appears to say about homosexuality TO THEM/ I know in the end it seems misinterpreted) and turn around and disregard other aspects of the bible as it relates to LEGALISM?

edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

My two posts at the top of this page should cover that question, did you check those out?
If not, please do, it should answer the question.

Nothing in Scripture is irrelevant; however, the Old Testament legal system was a religious/political/civil system intended for the nation-state of Israel, and is not a part of Christian belief and practice. This is discussed above, and the logic and reasoning behind it is found in the book of Acts, chapter 15, in the Bible. Hope that helps.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Chic-fil-a has not "banned" anybody. Go buy a clue somewhere. Opposing gay marriage is not the same as refusing to serve any particular customer. Epic fail...

I did not say they had banned anyone.

Opposition to gay marriage is primarily religious in nature. So, if we accept what Leviticus says about "the gays", we must accept what they say about menstruating women. Yes?

According to the Bible they are unclean. How is that suitable for a woman we are commanded to "stay away from" to be in a restaurant where others are eating? I am merely taking the Bible seriously - all of it, and seeing if others are doing the same (they aren't).

Do you reject parts of Leviticus? Would you be happy, after reading and accepting Leviticus, to sit next to a menstruating woman who is unclean and disgusting? Do you think homosexuals should be put to death, or merely barred from marriage?

edit on 3-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

I bible scholar you are not!
Are you arguing with jews who hold themselves under the law or Christians who are under Grace?
If the latter, what does the New Testament that makes the old manifold in wisdom and truth say about it?
I ask because....you are addressing Christians are you not?
Or are you addressing the Jews under the law?
To anyone that knows a thing or two about Bible truths you seem to be lacking almost completely with discernment.
Almost like looking for a phone number in a phone book but using only the parts under "A" and the guys name is Johnson.
So, do you want to do a google on what the new Testament scriptures are so we can get more of your bible interpretations or are you stuck in 1'st gear and 10,000 rpms racing down the freeway doing 140 mph asking everyone why the engine is smoking?

Originally posted by krossfyter
first comment i see in the comment section there:


"In this case, "God Bless America" is actually code for "F*&k you , faggots!"

sadly, pretty spot on. im sorry but those people at chic fil hate are the kinds of christians Mahatmas Gandhi talks about.

im not sure why they are so blind to this? do they really see? or are they still blind? perhaps the republican right is blinding them from truly being loving christians.

I think this is a significant part of the problem when it comes to the Church on issues like this.
The Church seems to have forgotten that our mission is twofold: to help the fatherless and the widow (obviously this applies in a broader sense, e.g. charity/missions), and to preach the gospel.

Christianity is not a social or political platform, nor should it be used as an excuse to justify your own prejudice against any one group or another. Does the Bible teach that homosexuality is sin? Yes it does. Should the Church believe and teach that? Yes it should. But you know what? Lying is sin too. Do we stop loving people because they lie occasionally? Not so much, no.

Truth is truth. The Church should not compromise on that... so if God says that homosexuality is sin, then that should be upheld among us. But the fact is that there are a small handful of verses in Scripture that talk about homosexuality. There are HUNDREDS that talk about love. Loving God, loving ourselves, loving our neighbour. The point is this. Righteous, pure living is not an end in and of itself. My posts above talk a lot about the law, and the purpose of the law. Trying to get the world to see things 'our way' and to live a life according to what we think is right is like trying to force everyone to follow the Old Testament law. But the Bible makes the point, very clearly, that the law isn't ever going to make anyone "good". Rather, the law shows us that we can't possibly BE good, because we can't ever follow it!

What I'm saying is this. There's nothing wrong with believing that homosexuality is sin. Biblically, it is. But if that's the ONLY message you're getting across, then something is horribly, horribly wrong. And if the church actually wants to do the job that God left for us to do, then we need to start preaching the GOSPEL, not debating social justice issues. People aren't going to start living good lives because the church says they should. And why should they? What possible right do I, as a Christian, have, to expect others to live according to my standards?

If you want to change the world, preach Christ... and let Him do the rest.

Originally posted by Awen24Sorry, I missed this earlier.

thnx for responding.


Originally posted by Awen24
There are essentially three passages that refer to homosexuality in the New Testament, which build on the statements in the Old.

in chronological order:

Romans 1:26-27, "For this reason, God gave them up to shameful pursuits. Even their women exchanged natural relations for that which is unnatural, and likewise men, having left the natural state with women, were inflamed with lust for one another: males with males, committing shameful acts, and receiving in themselves the penalty that was due."

No, Romans 1:26-27 does not condemn gays, lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals or transgendered people. Every Christian has a duty before God to interpret scripture honestly, in context, instead of divorcing verses from their context and then insisting they mean something they never meant to the original hearers.

Because all scripture is given in a cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic, literary and religious context, those factors must be part of our thinking as we seek to understand scripture.

Romans 1:26-27 was given in a very clear context. There is no cultural indication, no doctrinal indication, no historical indication, no linguistic indication, no literary indication, no religious indication, that Paul intended to blast lesbians and gays in Romans 1:26-27.

Instead, Paul chooses the worst possible transgression of pagan Gentiles so that the Jews in his reading audience will be saying, "Yes, Yes, they're guilty!" Then Paul will spring his rhetorical trap in 2:1 when he declares that Jewish idolatry is just as sinful as Gentile idolatry and therefore, everyone is guilty.


Paul's point never was
about lesbians and gays.


Early Christians like Aristides and Justin Martyr understood Paul to be condemning shrine prostitution. Our rule of interpretation is:

Scripture cannot mean NOW
what it did not mean THEN.


If Paul wasn't dealing with committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships in AD 58 when he wrote Romans, then its wrong to insist that those verses are dealing with committed same sex partnerships now.

Christians need to do more reading and study before concluding that the first notion that pops into our head when we read Romans 1 is infallibly correct.

Sometimes, the first thing we think when we read a verse of scripture is wrong. That is why we are encouraged to "Study to shew yourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." -2 Timothy 2:15

Originally posted by Awen24
1 Corinthians 1:9-10, "Do you not know that the unrighteousness and evildoers shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality..."

1 Timothy 1:9-10, which is essentially a repeat doctrinally of 1 Corinthians, "knowing and understanding this: that the law is not given for the righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient, the ungodly and the sinful, the irreverent and profane; for murderers of fathers and mothers, manslayers, whoremongers, and those who abuse themselves with men, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine..."

So many people have said that no where in the New testament does it talk about homosexuality, so therefore it’s not a sin, or therefore, it’s okay. So, I just wanted to share this.

Actually, your friends are right:

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 used to condemn homosexuals. But we know that there was no word for “homosexual/ity” in any language until 1868 when it was coined by German Christian Ethicist Helmut Thielike in a critical response to a Prussian sodomy law. The word mistranslated as ‘homosexual/homosexual offender’ in certain Biblical translations, is ‘arsenokoitai’. A word meaning ‘man-bed’ (literally). It has been translated throughout history as ‘pervert’ (*the most accurate), and ‘masturbator’(during Martin Luther’s era; but that is also a mistranslation). ‘Pervert’ or ‘perversion’ is the best translation as the last time it was used in the Classical era (and specifically by a Classical church leader) in the 2nd Century AD to condemn men who were having anal sex with their wives. Not homosexual acts or homosexuality itself.

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter

"Do you reject parts of Leviticus?

im sorry there has been a lot of thread covered lately AND i may have missed it but im curious about the above question myself and other parts of the bible.

how can christians on one end uphold or go by one part of the bible (in regards to what it appears to say about homosexuality TO THEM/ I know in the end it seems misinterpreted) and turn around and disregard other aspects of the bible as it relates to LEGALISM?

edit on 3-8-2012 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

My two posts at the top of this page should cover that question, did you check those out?
If not, please do, it should answer the question.

Nothing in Scripture is irrelevant; however, the Old Testament legal system was a religious/political/civil system intended for the nation-state of Israel, and is not a part of Christian belief and practice. This is discussed above, and the logic and reasoning behind it is found in the book of Acts, chapter 15, in the Bible. Hope that helps.

i did but i didnt see an answer for this....

"how can christians on one end uphold or go by one part of the bible (in regards to what it appears to say about homosexuality TO THEM/ I know in the end it seems misinterpreted) and turn around and disregard other aspects of the bible as it relates to LEGALISM? "


perhaps you can answer it directly here. you were answering another question. i may have missed implications.

Originally posted by Awen24

Originally posted by krossfyter
first comment i see in the comment section there:


"In this case, "God Bless America" is actually code for "F*&k you , faggots!"

sadly, pretty spot on. im sorry but those people at chic fil hate are the kinds of christians Mahatmas Gandhi talks about.

im not sure why they are so blind to this? do they really see? or are they still blind? perhaps the republican right is blinding them from truly being loving christians.

I think this is a significant part of the problem when it comes to the Church on issues like this.
The Church seems to have forgotten that our mission is twofold: to help the fatherless and the widow (obviously this applies in a broader sense, e.g. charity/missions), and to preach the gospel.

Christianity is not a social or political platform, nor should it be used as an excuse to justify your own prejudice against any one group or another. Does the Bible teach that homosexuality is sin? Yes it does. Should the Church believe and teach that? Yes it should. But you know what? Lying is sin too. Do we stop loving people because they lie occasionally? Not so much, no.

i already responded to your interpretation of the word homosexuality being used in the bible. so im not going to deal with that error? here.


too many christians (or people who think they are being like Jesus) are in it for the wrong reasons. again i refer to the Mahatma Gandhi on christians.

there is a reason a person with his stature said that.


if christians just focused on LOVE then we wouldn't be in this mess.

instead of christians pouring all this hate (disguised as free speech) with this whole chic fil a thing it seems obvious they should be using that to not CONDEMN OR JUDGE but rather for LOVE and TOLERANCE.

Originally posted by johngrissom

It is safe to assume, your IQ is about as high as Britteny Spear's. You have ban in the title. Which you assume Chick Fil A said ban all homosexuals.

Like stated above...EPIC FAIL

im sorry but this reflects your IQ. how does he "assume Chick Fil A said ban all homosexuals." ?

do you ASSUME he is implying that?

he never once said chic fil a banned homosexuality.


geez people how many times do we have to go thru this?

Originally posted by krossfyter
"how can christians on one end uphold or go by one part of the bible (in regards to what it appears to say about homosexuality TO THEM/ I know in the end it seems misinterpreted) and turn around and disregard other aspects of the bible as it relates to LEGALISM? "

Put simply...
There are two systems in the bible. One is the political/civil/religious system of Ancient Israel, as handed down by God. The other is a spiritual system only.

The issue here isn't that Christians disregard passages relating to legalism. It's that the passages relating to legalism never were for, or part of, Christian teaching. They were part of an entirely different system that was given to Israel. This is why we have the Old and New Testaments. They're two entirely different covenants, or agreements, between God and man.

The purpose of the Old Testament is to serve as a picture of what was to come. So, the laws and requirements of the Old Testament are there to show mankind what is required of them; and, on the flipside, to show mankind that they can never, ever live up to God's standards (as Romans says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."). Those laws were fulfilled in Christ. The very concepts and realities that the law pointed to, were brought into literal being in Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. Romans says, in the same vein, that "what the law was powerless to do (that is, actually save mankind), Christ did on the cross".

So with that in mind, what we find in the Bible subsequent to Christ's death and resurrection, is that man lives not under law, but under grace. What that means is that our holiness is no longer wrapped up in what we do (that vicious cycle of trying to keep the law and always failing), but in what Christ has done.

So, the old system, with its laws, regulations and restrictions, no longer applies - and for two reasons - first, because its purpose and set time is complete (in that Christ completed what the law never could), and second, because that system was intended for a time, and for a people, that were (for a time), rejected.

In this sense, the nation of Israel and the Church are mutually exclusive. This is a much bigger, broader topic, but it is one that is logically consistent throughout the Bible.

...so ultimately it isn't a matter of Christians "picking and choosing", but a matter of how the Bible actually presents itself. It's worth remembering that the Bible isn't one book. It's 66 books, with 40 different authors, over thousands of years. It's reflective of not simply of a series of laws and beliefs, but of the relationship between God and man throughout our history.

The law was there to serve just two purposes: to show us that we fail to live up to God's standards, and to point to Christ. And from Christ onward, we live not by law, but by grace.

The whole book of Romans centers around this point. It's worth a read.