Question for Christians on Morality

[rossum]

And logically possible that God does exist

It is also logically possible that Vishnu exists, or do you have a logical disproof?

 

[Furion]

You should take that up with the (small minority of, in my experience) atheists who claim objective morality exists. Most do not.

No. I took it up with the OP, who likely does what nearly all internet atheists do, argue they are "moral", just like a Christian....in fact most believe they are even more "moral" than the Christian.

Sad to watch really.

 

[shnarkle]

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).

Yep, which supports the fact that the law was never meant or intended to save anyone. Rejecting a false purpose doesn't negate the actual intended purpose. No one is claiming that the law saves anyone. You are not saved by keeping the first commandment. That doesn't do away with the first commandment.

You're not saved by remaining faithful to your spouse. That doesn't do away with the need for fidelity to one's spouse. Cherry picking laws you don't want to keep doesn't cut it, and spotlights that you're cherry picking, or you have a capricious god.

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).

Strawman argument. I have never claimed the law saves anyone. FAIL AGAIN.

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

You conceded the debate a long time ago. You have no defense for your faith in your capricious gods.

 

[Howie]

So, food laws are not moral laws, because food laws change.

No they are food laws because they are about food.

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?

There's no explanation for that given in scripture. However, the marriage plan is one man, which eventually restored.

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.

Read the entire book of Leviticus.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Whilst we cant prove to you that God exists, you cant prove God doesnt exist, yet you are posturing as though God doesnt exist.

I am not 'posturing' as anything.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

No. I took it up with the OP, who likely does what nearly all internet atheists do, argue they are "moral", just like a Christian....in fact most believe they are even more "moral" than the Christian.

Sad to watch really.

Yes, it's very sad. That atheists are more moral than Christians - who supposedly have the moral high ground - is very sad indeed.

 

[Furion]

Yes, it's very sad.

Hey now, don't be sad. You can help your fellow atheists by laughing at them over their overly moral superiority complex!

That atheists are more moral than Christians - who supposedly have the moral high ground - is very sad indeed.

You claiming to be the moralist is pathetic really.

You've seen the stats and polls about how people view atheists, right?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Hey now, don't be sad. You can help your fellow atheists by laughing at them over their overly moral superiority complex!

I might if they had one.

You claiming to be the moralist is pathetic really.

I don't claim to be moralist. That's Christians' territory. I claim to be moral. And certainly more moral than Christians.

You've seen the stats and polls about how people view atheists, right?

What people think about atheists is irrelevant to what atheists actually are.

 

[Furion]

I claim to be moral. And certainly more moral than Christians.

Well there ya have it fella!

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[rossum]

No they are food laws because they are about food.

So the laws about sex are not moral laws because they are laws about sex? Just because a law is in one classification does not mean that the law cannot be in a different classification as well.

There's no explanation for that given in scripture. However, the marriage plan is one man, which eventually restored.

If there is no explanation given, then how can you know what the marriage plan is? The marriage laws have certainly changed, which means that they are not unchanging moral laws.

Read the entire book of Leviticus.

I have. The laws are listed there, but they are not classified into groups. Later, Jesus says that He is not going to change any of those Mosaic laws, yet His followers have changed some of them. Jesus put all the laws into a single unchanging classification, while others have split them into the ones that still apply and the ones that no longer apply.

A pity that, the law against cotton-polyester shirts was a good one.

 

[Howie]

Yep, which supports the fact that the law was never meant or intended to save anyone. Rejecting a false purpose doesn't negate the actual intended purpose. No one is claiming that the law saves anyone. You are not saved by keeping the first commandment. That doesn't do away with the first commandment.

You're not saved by remaining faithful to your spouse. That doesn't do away with the need for fidelity to one's spouse. Cherry picking laws you don't want to keep doesn't cut it, and spotlights that you're cherry picking, or you have a capricious god.

Strawman argument. I have never claimed the law saves anyone. FAIL AGAIN.

You conceded the debate a long time ago. You have no defense for your faith in your capricious gods.

Thanks for your lengthy straw man.

BTW, Shnarkle, how do you "self identify" -- theist, or atheist?

 

[Howie]

So the laws about sex are not moral laws because they are laws about sex? Just because a law is in one classification does not mean that the law cannot be in a different classification as well.


If there is no explanation given, then how can you know what the marriage plan is? The marriage laws have certainly changed, which means that they are not unchanging moral laws.

They are moral laws

I have. The laws are listed there, but they are not classified into groups.

Read a Bible with pericopes.

Later, Jesus says that He is not going to change any of those Mosaic laws, yet His followers have changed some of them. Jesus put all the laws into a single unchanging classification, while others have split them into the ones that still apply and the ones that no longer apply.

The law hasn't changed.

A pity that, the law against cotton-polyester shirts was a good one.

Not a moral law.

 

[Furion]

You have no defense for your faith in your capricious gods.

Wha?

You have no defense for your faith in orange goo.

Could you rewrite that to state what you are intending to say?

I also have no faith in "capricious gods."

 

[ydoaPs]

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?

Matthew 5:48 does no such thing. Salvation by works is a theme of Jesus's in the synoptics. Again, Jesus's position of works and following the Law is precisely how Peter defended following the Law against Paul in their dispute.

Peter and Jesus say follow the Law, Paul says you don't have to.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Well there ya have it fella!

Thanks for the confirmation.

Who woulda thunk that so many atheists could be more pharisaical than the theist Pharisees?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Matthew 5:48 does no such thing. Salvation by works is a theme of Jesus's in the synoptics. Again, Jesus's position of works and following the Law is precisely how Peter defended following the Law against Paul in their dispute.

Peter and Jesus say follow the Law, Paul says you don't have to.

"Is salvation by faith alone, or does it require works?"
"Yes".

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Peter and Jesus say follow the Law, Paul says you don't have to.

Nonsense. Jesus winked at his disciples breaking the Law (Matt 12:1), and Peter broke the Law (Mark 2:23).

 

[rossum]

They are moral laws

And they changed, so then moral laws are not all unchanging. Some change, like the number of wives a man can have.

Read a Bible with pericopes.

Periscopes were not invented when the Bible was written, so they are unbiblical.

The law hasn't changed.

Some laws have, or is it morally wrong to wear a cotton-polyester shirt today?

Not a moral law.

And where in the Bible is the list of which laws are moral laws and which are not moral laws? Or is this merely a human interpretation added after Bible was written?

 

[ydoaPs]

Nonsense. Jesus winked at his disciples breaking the Law (Matt 12:1), and Peter broke the Law (Mark 2:23).

Jesus did no such thing; he winked at them breaking the Pharisees' legalistic extrapolation of the Law.

You'll not find picking up grain and eating it being forbidden in the Law.

 

[Howie]

Matthew 5:48 does no such thing.

Sure it does. As James says, break one law, and you're guilty of breaking the entire law because the standard for salvation through law keeping is keeping the law to perfection (Jas 2:10; cf Mt 5:48).

You've already failed at that. The law has failed to save you, but then again, the law was never designed to save anyone, but it was designed to reveal to one his sinfulness (Rom 3:20).

Salvation by works is a theme of Jesus's in the synoptics. Again, Jesus's position of works and following the Law is precisely how Peter defended following the Law against Paul in their dispute.

Salvation has always been by grace, through faith (Eph 2:8ff; cf Gen 15:6). The purpose of the law is not to save one who keeps the law; the purpose of the law is to reveal to you that you are sinful by your inability to perfectly keep the law (Rom 3:20). No one has kept the law perfectly, but Christ who is the atonement for sin, the forgiveness of sin. God gave the Old Testament Jews the animal, sacrificial system as a way of offering atonement their sins, but as the writer tells us, the blood of bulls and goats are not sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, but only Christ is (Heb 10:4ff).

Peter and Jesus say follow the Law, Paul says you don't have to.

Following the law is good, everyone is obligated to keep the moral law, but keeping the law saves no one, because the standard for salvation through law keeping is perfection (Jas 2:10; cf Mt 5:48). One is saved by grace, through faith, not by works (Rom 3:20; Eph 2:8ff)

So, if, as an atheist you think you can be saved by keeping the law, you have been deceived by whoever it is that taught you salvation comes through keeping the law. You've already broken the law, and you are presently under God's condemnation for not putting your trust in Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (Jn 3:18ff).