Question for Christians on Morality

Howie

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


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


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


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?
I believe I've already answered all those points. You're repeating yourself.
 

Howie

Well-known member
Thanks for conceding the argument.

You just can't help but indulge in one logical fallacy after another. This isn't about me, and your transparent attempt to engage in Ad Hominem is pathetic.
Ok. I'm identifying you as an atheist.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Knock yourself out dude.

As closely related as you may think identification is to identity identification is not identity. Consult a dictionary if you don't believe me.
It's one of the reasons why Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. It makes no difference who I am. What matters is the content of my argument, which you insist on ignoring thus conceding the argument. You're left to obsess over the identity of those who you can't debate.
 

ydoaPs

New Member
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 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).

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).
How exactly do you think referencing what people who disagree with Jesus think is going to persuade someone that one of Jesus's main themes is actually the opposite of his teaching?
 

Howie

Well-known member
How exactly do you think referencing what people who disagree with Jesus think is going to persuade someone that one of Jesus's main themes is actually the opposite of his teaching?
Jesus is God; the scripture is the word of God; therefore, God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit and all the apostles agree that salvation has always been by grace, through faith, not by works Eph 2:8ff. See what Genesis 15:6 says about the justification of Abraham.

Works have never saved anyone, and they are not going to save you.
 

ydoaPs

New Member
Jesus is God; the scripture is the word of God; therefore, God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit and all the apostles agree that salvation has always been by grace, through faith, not by works Eph 2:8ff. See what Genesis 15:6 says about the justification of Abraham.

Works have never saved anyone, and they are not going to save you.
Again, quoting someone who explicitly disagrees with Jesus. I hope you all the world in finding someone who will think that is persuasive
 

SteveB

Well-known member
So the judge had a truly marvellous demonstration of this proposition which this thread is too narrow to contain.
It's more like,
It's been 23-24 years since the meeting that night, and a lot of life has happened in between then and now.

Here's an article from 2015, from someone who is completely different.


"Religion and Morality" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345965/

Dostoevsky had a lot to say about this issue too.

I think his most famous quote is that

If there is no God then everything is permitted.

www.the-philosophy.com/god-exist-permitted-dostoevsky

In it he references the Brothers Karamazov
 

Algernon

Active member
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.
Actually Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. The righteous do not commit sin.

Matthew 5
20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

One's righteousness not only need surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, it must be perfect. Not only perfect, but as perfect as God is perfect. It is required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus reiterated the theme in the following:

Matthew 13
41“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43“Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
49“So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, 50and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts exist?
No. It depends upon the God. There is nothing to say that a God is the source of morality.
You can have a God and still have 'subjective' morals.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
And yet He did. You might try backing up your comment that "Peter and Jesus say follow the Law." Show us all where they said that.
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

First of all those words are not instructions to follow the law, but were you thinking Peter and Jesus were doing a duet there and that Matthew just forgot to give Peter attribution?
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
First of all those words are not instructions to follow the law, but were you thinking Peter and Jesus were doing a duet there and that Matthew just forgot to give Peter attribution?
What's the point of it not passing away if there's no need to keep it?
I figured Jesus would supersede anything Peter had to say. Do you think Peter's opinion holds more weight than Jesus?
 
Top