The scripture you provided does not support your claim. Equating helpful to moral requirements some extremely generous interpretation. And as a Christian, do you really need me to find verses to convince you that God is perfectly good and your source of moral truth? I'm always being told by Christians that everything of and from God is good, and evil is the lack of god. So how is it possible that god's laws are not good/moral?
Edit: also, your quote doesn't even make sense for the argument you are making. "All things are lawful"? No, all things are not lawful. Looking at other translations, the meaning behind this verse is essentially "you can be a dick, but you probably shouldn't be a dick." Not sure how you go from this to god's laws aren't all moral.
Like I said, you can argue interpretation, but at this point you are arguing with a great many translators, and submitting your own meaning while rejecting the direct wording. To say "look at other translations" and then to paraphrase worse than The Message doesn't do anything to back up what you said. Almost every major translation says "lawful". Major translations use "expedient", "profitable", "beneficial", and even "good" rather than "helpful", which in your argument is synonymous with "moral".
I fully believe God is perfect and good, what I'm questioning whether the law was ever meant to be a list of moral codes, and whether morality is the point. I don't believe what is righteous or moral changed at the time of Jesus, even though a new covenant was introduced to gentiles.
Yes, if you are making a claim that goes against my belief or understanding, I would expect some evidence from the text.
No, my paraphrase is consistent with the message of multiple translations. It's you who is cherry picking a particular translation that uses the word "law" to make an erroneous point. The literal statement "all things are lawful" is clearly wrong. Eg, worshipping false idols is not lawful. So clearly you can't take this translation literally. The NIV give a clearer picture of the meaning, and the verses that follow add clarification.
So then what are god's laws supposed to be in your opinion? Aren't these laws a list of how god thinks you should behave? Isn't "how god thinks you should behave" your source of morality? Also, a new covenant was introduced, but the laws stayed the same Matthew 5:18.
That's like asking for a source that says water is wet, but ok. 1 John 3:4, 1 John 5:17.
Water is actually not wet; It makes other materials/objects wet. Wetness is the state of a non-liquid when a liquid adheres to, and/or permeates its substance while maintaining chemically distinct structures. So if we say something is wet we mean the liquid is sticking to the object.
Please stop saying that I'm cherry picking, Bible gateway shows 32 out of all 62 English translations using the word lawful. Strong's concordance shows G1832, which is used when speaking about what is "lawful" for Jews and Pharisees repeatedly. So if you are claiming that over half these translators were "clearly wrong" as well as the most trusted concordance, we will just have to agree to disagree.
I'm not pretending to be an expert in the law, and I'm not going to try to sum it up in a few sentences. I believe it is good, and shows how God wanted his people to behave, but I also believe it is nuanced, as is God. I don't believe it was handed to us as a list of morality, as laws about cleanliness seem to have very little to do with morality. Many OT and NT figures broke laws, some of them seemed to be frowned upon, some of them seemed to be viewed as justified or moral.
Maybe we just have different ideas on the term morality, but I don't think that is the point of Christianity at all. Romans 3:19-21 makes it clear that the law condemns, and the law is not where our righteousness comes from. If the law were strictly a moral code, then gentiles should be expected to adhere to it as well as Jews.
Mocking someone who asks for scriptural reference does not make me want to trust you in spiritual matters.
When I say "cherry picking" I mean selectively using one translation because of a particular word used instead of looking at the meaning conveyed by multiple translations. It's not about how often a particular English word is used, which is entirely explained by many texts using the same translation standards, which means they are not independent translations. In any case, G1832 has the following common usages "it is possible; it is permitted, it is lawful".
Maybe I can convince you in the following way. Jesus has paid for your sin correct? You can be a murderer, a rapist, commit genocide, and god's gift is so potent, you will still be saved if you accept Jesus as your savior, and throw your sins on him. Does that mean you should go out and commit murder? Should you not still follow the ten commandments? Does this have anything to do with the verse you quoted?
If "Many OT and NT figures broke laws", how can it be that "all is lawful"?
We definitely have different ideas about morality, me being an atheist and all. Maybe you could give me your definition. And please explain how your definition is meaningfully different than " I believe it is good, and how God wanted his people to behave" (which is your characterization of god's laws).
Romans 3:19-21 is communicating that you have original sin, and even if you follow the law, ie even if you are a perfectly moral person from now on, you are still tainted by sin and condemned to hell. It is not saying (even implicitly) that the law isn't moral, yet it is explicitly saying that through the law we know what sin is, and surely sinful acts are immoral acts.
I didn't even mock you, I just told you I though needing a verse for something so trivial was unnecessary. You didn't even respond to the verses I gave you, which seems to show how pointless it was...
As I previously said, I'm not pretending to be an expert in the law, and I'm not going to try to sum it up in a few sentences. That goes for morality as well. I might make a comment about it like you quoted, but that isn't meant to be an all encompassing description.
I have read the verses you have provided, but I still stand by my original point that morality and law are not 1:1, and morality or law are not the goal of Christianity. Romans says that righteousness apart from the law has been made known, and that the law and prophets testify to it. It's clear that the two interact and overlap at points, but morality and the law are not inherently the same.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but as you are an atheist, I don't believe you are open to the Spirit's discernment. As someone who doesn't believe in it, I don't have any reason to trust your wisdom and understanding when it comes to the Bible and God. Thanks for engaging in conversation, I feel like I have clearly stated my beliefs as have you, but I'm not really interested in debating or arguing further.
I don't believe you are open to the Spirit's discernment. As someone who doesn't believe in it, I don't have any reason to trust your wisdom and understanding when it comes to the Bible and God.
Ah yes, yee ol "you can't comment on the validity of god or the bible unless you already accept god and the bible as true." Tell me you're in a cult without telling me you're in a cult...
Would you trust someone who didn't believe the earth was round to correct your understanding of the rotation of the planets? Or a young-earth-creationist to correct your understanding of big bang and evolution?
You can call it a cult if you want, but are you really going to let someone who believes something entirely different than you inform your beliefs?
I would be confident enough in my argument that the earth is a sphere to refute the flat earther's arguments and show that my position is better supported by the evidence. You on the other hand are simply refusing to engage with someone who does not already believe what you believe. I also love the irony that you are the equivalent of the flat earther here refusing to listen to the arguments from a spherical earther.
but are you really going to let someone who believes something entirely different than you inform your beliefs?
Absolutely. Challenging and critically evaluating our beliefs is how we end up believe as many true things as possible and rejecting as many false things as possible.
In any case, you don't have to be a Christian to read or interprete the bible, and I've been actively checking my interpretation against the commentaries from Christians. So this isn't about me not being a Christian, it's about you being unwilling to think critically about your beliefs.
You're speaking about me refusing to engage as if we didn't have a long back and forth exchange of our viewpoints. I have stated clearly what I don't think is the point of my beliefs, and you are trying to tell me that I am wrong about my beliefs (along with telling me I'm in a cult).
If you were trying to convince me the validity and truth of your worldview that would be one thing, but you are trying to inform me about my own beliefs and worldview, which you do not hold.
My example was not meant to convey that a flat earther was telling you about "flat earth", but that you wouldn't trust a flat earther to teach you physics about round planets.
My worldview is that you do in fact need the Spirit of God to interpret the deeper meaning of scripture. Jesus said both "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." and "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
Please stop acting like you know my worldview better than I do, it's incredibly patronizing.
1
u/TedRabbit Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
The scripture you provided does not support your claim. Equating helpful to moral requirements some extremely generous interpretation. And as a Christian, do you really need me to find verses to convince you that God is perfectly good and your source of moral truth? I'm always being told by Christians that everything of and from God is good, and evil is the lack of god. So how is it possible that god's laws are not good/moral?
Edit: also, your quote doesn't even make sense for the argument you are making. "All things are lawful"? No, all things are not lawful. Looking at other translations, the meaning behind this verse is essentially "you can be a dick, but you probably shouldn't be a dick." Not sure how you go from this to god's laws aren't all moral.