Question for Christians on Morality

shnarkle

Well-known member
You're wrong. Gen 9:3 refutes your assertion that unclean animals were always unclean.
He is explicitly told to obtain one pair of unclean animals and seven pair of clean. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." Gen. 6:2

FAIL.
That's true. Again, cite any law prior to to Lev 11 naming any dietary prohibition, animal, or plant.
See above, and Genesis 6. Note also that the word in the Hebrew refers to animals that are "filthy, polluted". There is nothing in scripture to indicate that God condones the consumption of filth or pollution. If so, where?
 

Howie

Well-known member
See Acts 15:21 which explicitly points out why there's no point in repeating the entire Mosaic law because they can learn all about it in the synagogues each and every Sabbath day.
Back up to verse 19 and read from there. No reiteration of the dietary laws is given to the church.
Explicitly refers to converts to the church keeping the dietary laws.
Not so, as pointed out above.
The only place where strangling or consuming blood is forbidden is in the dietary laws.
Refraining from eating things strangled and refraing frim eating blood are the only new testament food resriction placed upon the church.

You finished now?


 

Komodo

Well-known member
Apparently, the capacity for human morality is not an inherently sustainable idea. Once God is removed from the equation, there's no point to it.
So the judge had a truly marvellous demonstration of this proposition which this thread is too narrow to contain.
 

Howie

Well-known member
He is explicitly told to obtain one pair of unclean animals and seven pair of clean. "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." Gen. 6:2
Again, Gen 9:3 refutes your claim that unclean animals were always unclean. In 9:3, all animals are clean for humans to eat. It is not until God gives dietary laws to Israel that the distinction between clean and unclean animals is made.

You finished now?









 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Back up to verse 19 and read from there. No reiteration of the dietary laws is given to the church.
See below.
Not so, as pointed out above.
Addressed and refuted. We're still waiting for an actual response.
Refraining from eating things strangled and refraing frim eating blood are the only new testament food resriction placed upon the church.
They're taken directly from the Mosaic law dude. smh.

More importantly, Luke explicitly records the fact that the elders of the church didn't see any point in belaboring the point when these converts were necessarily seeking out God's wisdom in the synagogues on the sabbath. Here it is again for your edification:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Why? Because those were the most egregious problems. There's no point in going through the whole Mosaic law when they're all hearing it preached to them every week. Read it yourself:

"21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Q.E.D.

This was always the case!!! This was how it had always been done. Converts went into the synagogues on the Sabbath. They kept all the Feast days as well They could no longer accept unclean food from a Jew as they had in the past when they were living as Gentiles.
You finished now?
Given that you can't refute or even address the facts presented, my work is done.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Again, There is nothing in that passage about food laws
False. Here it is again:

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
... you finished now?
No. you seem to think that the church fathers are morons or something. Why else would they mention some infraction or violation of the law when it wasn't something that was occurring to begin with? They receive letters notifying them of problems so they address them. There is no reason to belabor the point, or address some law that isn't being transgressed. That's just idiotic. Moreover, just because it isn't mentioned, it doesn't then follow that they're free to transgress those laws. If that's the case, then Christians are free to engage in cannibalism. In fact, the dietary laws are the only laws that preclude that from happening. Without them, there is nothing stopping them from eating each other. If so, where do the church elders prohibit it?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Where, in the Old Testament, is found the laws regarding the consumption of herbs?
I just quoted Genesis. What more do you want? You do know that Genesis is the first book of Moses, right? You do know that it's the first book of the Old Testament, no?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You're wrong. Gen 9:3 refutes your assertion that unclean animals were always unclean.
There is nothing anywhere to indicate otherwise. If so, where??? Genesis 6, and 9 both prove my point which is that filthy animals were always filthy from the day they were created. God tells Noah to gather one pair of unclean animals and seven pair of clean . Nowhere does he claim that they are now clean and unclean. They were always clean and unclean.
That's true.
Glad to see a moment of clarity is possible for you.
Again, cite any law prior to to Lev 11 naming any dietary prohibition, animal, or plant.
I'm not going to repeat myself. Read it for yourself. It's plainly stated in Genesis. Ignoring what was posted doesn't refute what was posted. FAIL.
 

Howie

Well-known member
See below.

Addressed and refuted. We're still waiting for an actual response.

They're taken directly from the Mosaic law dude. smh.

More importantly, Luke explicitly records the fact that the elders of the church didn't see any point in belaboring the point when these converts were necessarily seeking out God's wisdom in the synagogues on the sabbath. Here it is again for your edification:

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Why? Because those were the most egregious problems. There's no point in going through the whole Mosaic law when they're all hearing it preached to them every week. Read it yourself:

"21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Q.E.D.

This was always the case!!! This was how it had always been done. Converts went into the synagogues on the Sabbath. They kept all the Feast days as well They could no longer accept unclean food from a Jew as they had in the past when they were living as Gentiles.

Given that you can't refute or even address the facts presented, my work is done.
Read the chapter from v1. The point of the chapter is the recognition of the apistles of inability to be saved by keeping the law (v10). The apostles assert that Jews are saved in the same way gentiles -- by grace (v11).

You have failed to show anywhere in the New Testament where anyone is saved by keeping the law, dietary, or moral (cf Rom 1:20).

I'm done with this discussion. The last word is yours.
 

ydoaPs

New Member
You have failed to show anywhere in the New Testament where anyone is saved by keeping the law, dietary, or moral (cf Rom 1:20).
Matthew 5, and just about anywhere in the synoptics where Jesus talks about the subject.

There's a reason Peter was on the side he was on in the dispute with Paul.
 

Howie

Well-known member
Howie said:
You have failed to show anywhere in the New Testament where anyone is saved by keeping the law, dietary, or moral (cf Rom 1:20).
Matthew 5, and just about anywhere in the synoptics where Jesus talks about the subject.
Mt 5:48 implicitly puts the kibosh on anyone being saved by the law, Romans 1:20 does so explicitly.
There's a reason Peter was on the side he was on in the dispute with Paul.
Which was what side?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Still not interested in your ad hominem, insults and falsehoods. When you can respond civilly, I'll bother to actually address what you say.
Whilst we cant prove to you that God exists, you cant prove God doesnt exist, yet you are posturing as though God doesnt exist.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Whilst we cant prove to you that God exists, you cant prove God doesnt exist, yet you are posturing as though God doesnt exist.
Agreed, but it's a point of no consequence, as it's logically possible for God still not to exist.
 

Howie

Well-known member
Howie said:
You have failed to show anywhere in the New Testament where anyone is saved by keeping the law, dietary, or moral (cf Rom 1:20).

Mt 5:48 implicitly puts the kibosh on anyone being saved by the law, Romans 1:20 does so explicitly.

Which was what side?
I need correct Rom 1:20 to 3:20 for seekers. Hardcore atheists can ignore this post.
 

rossum

Well-known member
The unregenerate refuse to understand that food laws, 1) were peculiar to Israel under the old covenant and not reiterated to the church under the new covenant, in fact, under the New C8venant, ALL FOODS are declared legal.

2) Food laws given to Israel are not moral laws, they are food laws peculiar to Israel. We never see God punishing gentile nations for not observing food laws, do we, rossum? No, we don't. We do see them being punished for breaking the moral laws.

Regarding the moral laws, all men, believer and unbeliever alike are obligated to adhere to them. Moral laws are recorded in the 10 commandments and laws outlining unacceptable sexual behavior.
So, food laws are not moral laws, because food laws change. That leaves my point about marriage laws, which also changed. Abraham, David and Solomon had multiple wives while today God says that men can only have one wife. Is this another of God's laws that is not a 'moral law'? It is certainly not a food law. You claim that laws on sexual behaviour have not changed, yet this is an obvious example of such a law that has changed, or do Fundamentalist LDS churches have this one right?

Where in the Bible are the different types of laws enumerated? I do hope that these types you are talking about are not mere human interpretations of the Bible, rather than in the text of the Bible itself. I look forward to chapter and verse.
 
Top