Evangelion

What nonsense. Jesus' point was that this law encapsulated the Law and the prophets.

Nowhere are we told that this was something that would be fufilled at the passion of Christ.

Really Carr, your resort to the hopelessly disingenuous is rather transparent.

Evangelion

Straw man. Some of the 10 Commandments are obviously moral laws (do not commit adultery), while others are obviously not (observe the Sabbath, to keep it holy.)

You're not very good @ this, are you Carr?

*snip*

Time to put your money where your mouth is, Carr. Please explain to me why you think that the "mixed fibres" law was a moral law.

Oh, and we can throw in the Sabbath law as well, thanks.

Straw man. Nobody said that it was a ceremonial, ritual law. That one falls under this category:

You predictably ignored that point, just as you ignored these:

Think about it.

Straw man. I never claimed that this was a ceremonial or ritual law. It's a civil law, which (once again) falls under this category:

Come on Carr, surely you can do better that this?

Well, perhaps not...

Evangelion

I use my common sense, just as you should be doing. Get with it, DT - you're a "free thinker", aren't you? So come on, start thinking. Don't just sit there asking stupid questions.

A moral law is one that is directly related to moral and/or immoral acts, such as rape, theft, etc.

Yep. But it doesn't apply to the moral laws I've been talking about.

Because the food laws weren't moral laws. If you think they are, feel free to tell me why.

I keep asking this question and it keeps being ignored.

Still... no surprises there, eh?

Machiavelli

I can say that DoubtingThomas makes a lot more sense than that sentence does.

Look at it.

Talk about circular.

Ever heard that a words definition can't contain the word you are defining.

But you offer no means by which to distinguish them except YOUR OWN idea of what is moral or not.


Because they are all on an equl footing. The bible doesn't distinguish between laws for say homosexuality and eating shellfish.

And I find it interesting that you bring up "Rape" as a "moral law" since the bible seems to find it acceptable. If you rape a virgin, the only "penalty" is that you must marry her. Is that a moral law? And if it isn't a "moral law" what kind of law is it?

doubtingthomas

Yes, but if God gives a command (i.e. dont eat pork) and someone disobeys it then he is by your standards acting immorally. So actually anything God commands is related to morality/immorality. I agree with you though, that there are different categories of laws, but I think that the category of moral law - based on your definition - relates to any command God gives.

This of course, relates to the commandments God gave about punishment as well. For instance:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Exodus 22:18

" And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.."
Leviticus 24:16

" 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Deuteronomy 21:20-22

It's worth noting that there is a belief in Christianity right now called "reconstuctionism" which wants to return to this way of punishment.

Toto

The idea that some laws are moral, others ritual, is a modern view. There is no good reason to read it back into Jesus' day.

The Jewish law was originally based on sympathetic magic. The disobedient son was punished because his disobedience represented disobedience to God.

The Jewish nation promised to obey YHWH's 613 commandments and in return YHWH would give them military victory. After this failed to happen repeatedly, the Jews were forced to reinterpret the purpose of their laws - abstract morality, or civic cohesiveness, or whatever. But this is just rationalization.

In the first century CE, Jews emphasized following the law so YHWH would bless their military revolt against the Romans. After the destruction of the Temple, and even more so after the Bar Kochba revolt, it was obvious that following the law would not produce that result. But there was still a priesthood that needed to justify its existence and maintain some continuity with the past.

Evangelion

Duh - that's precisely what I was asked to provide. And when I asked other people for their own definition, I received nothing but a slack-jawed silence.

Wow, an assertion without evidence. Now, why doesn't that surprise me?

This is another topic, but you're wrong anyway.

I presume that Deuteronomy22 is the chapter you have in mind? It contains several distinctly different laws.

• Deuteronomy 22:22.
  If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

That's the prohibition against adultery.

• Deuteronomy 22:23-24.
  If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
  Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

That's the prohibition against fornication - which in this case is akin to adultery, because the damsel was betrothed. Notice that the woman was not raped; she was stoned to death because she was complicit in the sexual act. This is mutual sex, not rape.

• Deuteronomy 22:25-27.
  But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
  But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
  For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

That's the prohibition against rape - and you will notice that the victim is exonerated, while the perpetrator is put to death. There are no exceptions. The rapist is not allowed to rape a woman as long as he marries her afterwards.

• Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
  If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
  Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

That's the prohibition against fornication, in a case where the damsel is not betrothed. (As opposed to verses 23-24.)

Once again, the sexual act is spontaneous but mutual, and so the couple are required to marry. This is not rape, because the damsel assented to the act. (If you check the Hebrew, you will find that the terms of reference are different to those used in verses 25-27, in which rape definitely occurs.)

If you can't make sense of this (even when it's presented in the simplest language, as above) then there's no point in wasting any more of my time on this thread.

And quite frankly, the same applies to Carr & DT's objections to the "fulfillment of the law" principle. I've had nothing but filibustering from both of them, of the sort really amounts to nothing more than "Contradict the Christian at every turn, on every point, in every context... even if you end up looking like a complete fool."

In the immortal words of Dr Johnson: "Sir, I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

So much for the alleged intellectual brilliance of "free thinking" atheists.

doubtingthomas

I've replied to your posts, it's not my fault that you can't seem to find them. Toto's post and mine as well both thoroughly refute your claim that "moral law" is somehow seperate from the dietary laws.

Toto

Evangelion: how does the Bible distinguish between the laws against homosexuality and the laws against eating shellfish?

How can you (or anyone) consider the death penalty for adultery or fornication to be moral?

Steven Carr

Yes, it encapsulated that which was to be abolished.

It encapsulated that which was to be fulfilled.

Nowhere are we told by Jesus that this Old Testament Law is a commandment that would not be fulfilled at the passion of Christ.