Moral Law

[Oats]

is there such thing as right or wrong?

why should we care?

-----

state your case....

 

[Lewis]

There are 613 laws in the OT, out of those 613 laws the moral ones still stand but the sacrificial ones were done away with when Christ went to the cross. But thou shall not steal or sleep with your sister or rape or covet and so on and so on, those moral laws still stand. Because with out the law you would not know right from wrong or better yet what God sees as right and wrong.

 

[Evointrinsic]

A good summary of what morality is

"The evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior and not much thought is given to the social conducts of other creatures. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology and in particular sociobiology have demonstrated that, though human social behaviors are complex, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial. The traditional view of social scientists has been that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative, although others argue that there is a science of morality."
Source

 

[Strangelove]

is there such thing as right or wrong?

Yes.

why should we care?

You shouldn't care. Righteousness will naturally follow true faith, so I wouldn't worry about it.

state your case....

Louis Vuitton Mirror case 16.5″ x 9″ x 8.3″ covered with monogram canvas and held by a natural cowhide handle.

 

[Adstar]

Originally Posted by Oats
state your case....

Louis Vuitton Mirror case 16.5″ x 9″ x 8.3″ covered with monogram canvas and held by a natural cowhide handle.

... i love it.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Mike]

2 Timothy 3
"<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29864">10</sup> You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29865">11</sup> persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29866">12</sup> In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29867">13</sup> while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29868">14</sup> But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29869">15</sup> and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29870">16</sup> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-29871">17</sup> so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I would say that there is definitely right and wrong, and that this comes from the Truth being placed on our hearts by the Lord. The agnostic would disagree. So, it depends on who "we" are when you ask "should we care?"

 

[Theofilus]

There is no such thing as "the moral law". Neither is there any "ceremonial law" or "civil law" in the Bible. There is just one law. To paraphrase James, The one who said "Thou shallt not kill" also said "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy". The same one who said not to commit homosexual acts also told us not to eat shellfish. God calls both an abomination (see Lev. 11:9-10 and 18:22). It doesn't matter which commandment you're disobeying, if you violate one, you've transgressed against the whole law (James 2:11).

 

[Lewis]

There is no such thing as "the moral law". Neither is there any "ceremonial law" or "civil law" in the Bible. There is just one law. To paraphrase James, The one who said "Thou shallt not kill" also said "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy". The same one who said not to commit homosexual acts also told us not to eat shellfish. God calls both an abomination (see Lev. 11:9-10 and 18:22). It doesn't matter which commandment you're disobeying, if you violate one, you've transgressed against the whole law (James 2:11).
"Thou shallt not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination" also said "Thou shallt not eat those things from the waters that do not have fins and scales, they are an abomination".

This not the first time that I heard someone say what you have said. But not sleeping with your sister or raping your sons wife is a moral law. And yes the breaking of one makes you guilty of "well" breaking the law. God puts morals in all of us.
Go here
God's perfect moral law
God's moral law

Or here
The Moral Law
Delve Into Jesus : Articles : The Moral Law

 

[Ashua]

If there is a God, then moral Law is absolute according to the legitimate rights of the creator to exercise authority, command, and designed conduct of intent over his creation.

If there is no creator, then no one is a moral arbiter with any true legitimacy. It us like an orphanage in which the lone overseer dies and no one reports it. It becomes an animal farm. One is no more significant than the other in terms of having a "birth right" to exercise his will of morality within the population. If all life is an overseer to itself, lacking a central author of creation to owe it's being to, we are "laws unto ourselves", every man free to express his own idea of how he should behave without limitation save that of physical rebellion/control of established law.

courts of men are not moral generators. They are the product of mortal men.

true morality is absolutely contingent on the existence of a creator, which by this office alone is any worthy of binding his will on others on the moral level.

 

[Theofilus]

This not the first time that I heard someone say what you have said. But not sleeping with your sister or raping your sons wife is a moral law. And yes the breaking of one makes you guilty of "well" breaking the law. God puts morals in all of us.

Of course those things have to do with morality. I never denied that. My point was that the law can't be devided into moral, ceremonial and civil sections, as many do. Both homosexual acts and eating shellfish are called abominations. Why do we call one moral and the other ceremonial? In my opinion, both are equally moral matters. The dietary regulations, Sabbath laws, annual feasts and other commandments that we have relegated to "ceremonial" status because it doesn't suit us to keep them, were all commanded by God. When we violate these commandments, we are disobeying direct commandments from the creator of the universe. That's a moral violation, not a "mere ceremonial matter", as many would have it.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

is there such thing as right or wrong?

why should we care?

-----

state your case....

Yes and yes, and here is my case.

Sin in the Bible revolves largely around transgression which carries an indication of going beyond a set boundary or limit or is a falling short of or missing the mark.
It is interesting to note that there were sins listed in the Bible in many cases where there was no law. (Cain murdering Abel, Joseph knowing better than to have an affair with Potiphar's wife, etc.) Why? I believe that the ways of God, which are what righteousness is has always been written into the hearts of man, but by us choosing to not abide in that natural righteousness that is imbreed in us because we are all created in God's image, we have made it necessary to have a law. Law has nothing to do with righteousness, but rather points out sin making it obvious to those who act as if they are oblivious to what I term natural righteousness.

I firmly believe in the following statement.
"No law is required for a righteous man to make the right decision."
I understand law as being something that is only necessary when people choose to pursue evil rather than righteousness. So in a real way, righteousness superceeds the law, but the practice of evil makes law necessary.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

This thread has really opened up a can of worms for me as I believe that sin is the reason for law. Needing a law in turn has given tyranny a platform to stand on and look less threatening. It started off as governmental, this tyranny, but in time also became religious and led to inquisitions, jihads, crusades, and many other forms of unrighteousness in the name of the righteous God. Talk about using the lord's name in vain!

This pharissee-type religious oppression has caused men to follow and believe the doctrines and commandments of men masquerading under Godly titles. With every generation of these title holders, new "sins" seem to be created. Here is a small list of what I am talking about:

- gambling (but playing the stock market is okay)
- drinking (but medicating oneself with ADA approved substances is cool)
- smoking (I totally missed this in scripture)
- cussing (history tells us rich aristocrats made up the concept of "bad words", NOT GOD. These words were bad because they were used by the 'common' folks)
- women wearing pants
- and many more

What the above illustrates is man's propensity to take what he likes and wants others to subscribe to and equate it with God's laws. Some undertake in the business of creating sin less blatantly by using Godly principals to make moral (right and wrong) law. In this instance they say things like one of the above is not in line with what God likes, so therefore it is a sin (see how they creat THEIR OWN definition of sin), but these same people will eat shellfish, pork, catfish, and other unclean meats without batting an eye despite God viewing such practices as disgusting.

 

[Sissy]

Yes and yes, and here is my case.

Sin in the Bible revolves largely around transgression which carries an indication of going beyond a set boundary or limit or is a falling short of or missing the mark.
It is interesting to note that there were sins listed in the Bible in many cases where there was no law. (Cain murdering Abel, Joseph knowing better than to have an affair with Potiphar's wife, etc.) Why? I believe that the ways of God, which are what righteousness is has always been written into the hearts of man, but by us choosing to not abide in that natural righteousness that is imbreed in us because we are all created in God's image, we have made it necessary to have a law. Law has nothing to do with righteousness, but rather points out sin making it obvious to those who act as if they are oblivious to what I term natural righteousness.

I firmly believe in the following statement.
"No law is required for a righteous man to make the right decision."
I understand law as being something that is only necessary when people choose to pursue evil rather than righteousness. So in a real way, righteousness superceeds the law, but the practice of evil makes law necessary.

Excellent!


The priest gave David and his men the shewbread from the temple to eat.
But he was "righteous" for doing so, even though it was against "the law" to do so.

Rahab LIED to the soldiers about the spies hiding in her home.
She was "righteous" for doing so.

Mercy, grace, justice, and righteousness trump the law.

 

[Lewis]

Of course those things have to do with morality. I never denied that. My point was that the law can't be devided into moral, ceremonial and civil sections, as many do. Both homosexual acts and eating shellfish are called abominations. Why do we call one moral and the other ceremonial? In my opinion, both are equally moral matters. The dietary regulations, Sabbath laws, annual feasts and other commandments that we have relegated to "ceremonial" status because it doesn't suit us to keep them, were all commanded by God. When we violate these commandments, we are disobeying direct commandments from the creator of the universe. That's a moral violation, not a "mere ceremonial matter", as many would have it.

Here is the thing sacrificing sheep, and goats, to atone for sins were done away with when Jesus went to the cross. But the moral law of not sleeping with your sister or a women having sex with another woman still stands. the thing is within those 613 laws of the Torah you have the sacrificial laws and you have God's moral laws. Now I can go directly to Jesus without sacrificing a lamb, because Jesus was and is the lamb, for us all.

 

[Theofilus]

Here is the thing sacrificing sheep, and goats, to atone for sins were done away with when Jesus went to the cross. But the moral law of not sleeping with your sister or a women having sex with another woman still stands. the thing is within those 613 laws of the Torah you have the sacrificial laws and you have God's moral laws. Now I can go directly to Jesus without sacrificing a lamb, because Jesus was and is the lamb, for us all.

Not all sacrifices were to atone for sing. The apostles and other Christians kept offering sacrifices until the temple was destroyed. Since the law forbids offering sacrifices anywhere besides in the temple, it would be a sin to offer sacrifices today. We are, therefore, obeying the law by not offering sacrifices. But even though some things require the temple, a functioning Aaronic priesthood or something else that we don't have today, all the commandments which it is possible to keep are still valid. Disobeying any of them is disobeying God and, therefore, immoral. That includes working on the Sabbath, eating pork or blood (e.g. rare steaks), not celebrating Passover and other commandments which we have, without any biblical grounds for doing so, relegated to a lesser status than other commandments, simply because we don't want to keep these particular commandments.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

A huge key to remember is that all 613 laws, whether moral or ceremonial were subject to (meaning a part of) the covenant between God and national Israel. Before this covenant, there was sin, and after it was completed there is still sin. Murder was wrong before the commandment that said "thou shalt not kill" was written on Sinai.
I said all that to say that when dealing with morals, we need not look to the stipulations of the covenant between God and Israel. Instead, we must focus on righteousness (e.i. right-ways-ness). The moral thing to do is to continuously practice righteousness.

 

[Theofilus]

we need not look to the stipulations of the covenant between God and Israel. Instead, we must focus on righteousness (e.i. right-ways-ness). The moral thing to do is to continuously practice righteousness.

How can we focus on righteousness while ignoring the "stipulations of the covenenant"? The law is the only thing we have to define what righteousness is.

 

[Alabaster]

Jesus is what righteousness is for us. Just look to Him, not the law.

Philippians 3:9 NLT
...I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ. For God’s way of making us right with himself depends on faith.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

How can we focus on righteousness while ignoring the "stipulations of the covenenant"? The law is the only thing we have to define what righteousness is.

Righteousness exists outside of, before, and after the covenant. The covenent's stipulations were only applicable to those who were party to the covenant. Once the covenant was finished, its tenets were no longer binging on anyone.
Again, law doesn't define righteousness, it points out sin (wrong) and is only necessary when sin is being practiced instead of righteousness.

Romans 3
<SUP>19</SUP> Now, we know that everything the Law says was meant for those who were under the Law… it stopped every mouth and made the whole world deserving of God’s punishment. <SUP>20</SUP> But no flesh will be called righteous before Him by obeying the Law, since the Law is just the understanding of sin.
<SUP>21</SUP> But now, the righteousness of God can be seen in the absence of the Law, and the Law and the Prophets are witnesses to this. For, the Law and the Prophets testified <SUP>22</SUP> that God’s righteousness comes to all who believe and show their faith in Jesus the Anointed One… so there’s really no difference between us, <SUP>23</SUP> because we all sin and fall short of God’s glory! <SUP>24</SUP> Thus, being called righteous is a gift that He kindly gives through the ransom that was paid by the Anointed Jesus. <SUP>25</SUP> For, God sent him here as a gift, so that; when we have faith in his blood, we can be forgiven for the sins we’ve committed in the past… <SUP>26</SUP> back when God was just tolerating us. And this is what allows us to look into His righteous ways today. Yes, He proves Himself righteous by calling [all] those who have faith in Jesus righteous!

 

[Theofilus]

Righteousness exists outside of, before, and after the covenant. The covenent's stipulations were only applicable to those who were party to the covenant. Once the covenant was finished, its tenets were no longer binging on anyone.
Again, law doesn't define righteousness, it points out sin (wrong) and is only necessary when sin is being practiced instead of righteousness.

Sin is the opposite of righteousness. If the law points out sin, it also defines righteousness.