> No what I was saying is when I bring up things in the old testament christian will tell me "we'll that's old testament" so if what I bring up is irrelevant (or doesn't count) so is everything else.

It's obvious you were agreeing with me, thinking that OT environment and rules were somehow different—and they are, which is the point.

But the OT is very relevant. It's the inspired Word of God, just like the NT.

> And I'm going to bow out here because we will just keep going in circles over what's culturally acceptable and what the bible actually says. Everything in the bible was written with the current culture in mind. This is clear when you look at old vs new testament. Which means everything can change.

This is not true, either. Everything in the Bible was written in a cultural context, and it was written TO them, but it is also written FOR us. The principles in the OT carry through to all of us. It's certainly not true that "everything can change." Rape, for instance, is wrong no matter where, no matter who, no matter when. Murder is wrong. Kindness is good. Forgiveness is noble. These things never change.

> So what you're saying is that you agree with me

No what I was saying is when I bring up things in the old testament christian will tell me "we'll that's old testament" so if what I bring up is irrelevant (or doesn't count) so is everything else.

And I'm going to bow out here because we will just keep going in circles over what's culturally acceptable and what the bible actually says. Everything in the bible was written with the current culture in mind. This is clear when you look at old vs new testament. Which means everything can change.

> If that is the case then all sin becomes based on our subjective brains, right?

No. Wrong. Most sin is objective. The Bible tells us what sin is, and it's fairly clear. Most of the time there is no debate about it. Only in certain instances is there any element of subjectivity to it.

> If it is up to us to study the Bible and use our brains then the results will be subjective.

So, are you saying that when scientists study nature and use their brains, all of our scientific knowledge is subjective? I think not. Deep, legitimate study and using our brains doesn't necessarily end us up in the land of subjectivity.

If that is the case then all sin becomes based on our subjective brains, right? If it is up to us to study the Bible and use our brains then the results will be subjective.

We study the Bible and we use our brains.

How can we tell what sins are objective and which are subjective?

> That's old testament. I get told this all the time if I bring up anything old testament. So it doesn't matter.

So what you're saying is that you agree with me that it (no long hair for men) isn't a universal teaching for all men in all places in all eras, but it matters what the cultural standards, practices, and perceptions are?

> So why didn't he just say that?

He's been talking about keeping sexual distinctions clear in the whole chapter. He's talking about the differences in nature between men and women, the differences in how they are perceived, and therefore how they must act. He's been talking about nature, morality, and practice. What do you mean, "Why didn't he just say that?" Have you read and studied the context of the verse in question?

For the three previous chapters, Paul has written about what it means to be free. It turns out that freedom in Christ is a wonderful reality that people viciously abuse. They use their freedom to criticize others for sin on the one hand, to tolerate sin in others on another hand, and to indulge in sin themselves. It’s like we’re just too eager to judge and to sin. Paul is strong to shut all of that down.

Then we get to chapters 11-14, where Paul is going to focus on our freedom in worship. You’ll notice that he wants people to be free (whether male or female, whether of different gifts, as the celebrate the Lord’s supper, etc.), but they are not to use their freedom to make a mess of things, especially worship and their witness. Purity of life, self-control, consideration for others, love for others, unity in Christ, and a desire for an uncompromising witness in the world are to be their non-negotiable values in their pursuit of knowing Christ and living for Him.

> He didn't need to even be specific about long hair.

In chapter 11 he's been talking about propriety in worship, and in their culture, hair was one of the issues of disruption. Leon Morris writes, "Evidently some 'emancipated' Corinthian women had dispensed with the veil in public worship, and Paul argues they should not do this. The practice of these women outraged public propriety." Showing hair or not, and the length of hair, could make the Christians be disregarded as not only contemptible but also immoral. It really mattered in their culture.

> What's to keep someone from reading other straight forward verses in the new testament and using this same culture exception or any other exception they want to come up with?

We always do our very best to interpret a text properly and not falsely. Great effort is expended to understand the Scriptures accurately.

> Absalom had long hair. So also Samson. Was that a disgrace for them?

That's old testament. I get told this all the time if I bring up anything old testament. So it doesn't matter.

> but instead the blurring of sexual distinctions,

So why didn't he just say that? If he meant this it is very easy to say this. He didn't need to even be specific about long hair. If he had said men don't dress feminine according to your culture we wouldn't be having a different conversation. What's to keep someone from reading other straight forward verses in the new testament and using this same culture exception or any other exception they want to come up with?

Sometimes sin is an objective line, and sometimes it is not.

From Romans 14:

"One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. ... One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. ... So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. ... I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. ... So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin."

If someone goes against their conscience and their stance of faith, for them that is sin even though for another Christian it may not be.
There are some actions that are always sin, such as rape, sex outside of marriage, cold-blooded murder, and many others. There are some actions that depend on the conscience and faith of the believer, like hiding Jews in one's house during WWII and lying about it, or various stances against government mandates. In those cases, it depends on one's heart, mind, soul, and conscience, along with one's motives and attitudes.

Ok. So, what is and is not a sin changes depending on the culture? In your opinion, sin isn't some objective line?