RE: I need some opinions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics



Message

solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 10:20:13 AM)

Nope, definately not one of those.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 11:33:58 AM)

quote:

So I guess Romans 3:23 is saying that all the people in the Roman congregation have sinned - not really all of mankind, right? After all, it was written for a specific purpose to specific people.

That does not address my points. You are simply making a statement that you know neither of us believe.
Or, I suppose Ephesians 5 teaches that it's OK to get drunk by tequila, since it only forbids drunkenness by wine.

No, you do not suppose that at all. So why say so.


An absurd conclusion, of course.

I do not think it any conclusion at all. It is just a smoke screen.

However, to limit Romans 14 in the same way is, in my opinion, equally absurd.


Yes, that IS your opinion.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 11:38:13 AM)

quote:

Well, I double-checked with the head of my former school's Bible Department, who has a doctorate from DTS, and I was right. Apparently, the Bible college I attended wasn't decent, since he agrees with me that Scripture makes no distinction between the Law


Well, I fear then for the doctrine of the Trinity since one does not find that
term in the Bible as such, either.



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 12:00:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

quote:

Actually, I thought the "moral law" "ceremonial law" distinction was an SDA thing.


Well I don't even know what SDA stands for, so, I guess it is not "just an SDA thing".

Yes, the law is the law and Jesus said not even the tiniest part of it will be done away with until heaven and earth pass away." So that is what we
ALL have to deal with. I never said we live under the law - salvation is by grace alone.


solaflare:

So with the example given, re. the passage in Leviticus which also talks about not trimming beards, how does one handle that, in your view?



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 1:20:04 PM)

quote:

So with the example given, re. the passage in Leviticus which also talks about not trimming beards, how does one handle that, in your view?


Well, logically, we could say, don't grow a beard and you won't have to trim it.[:D]

What's your take on it? I've said quite a bit[;)]



MrFribbles -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 4:26:03 PM)

quote:

That does not address my points. You are simply making a statement that you know neither of us believe.


It addresses your point entirely. You say Romans 14 is meant to only address the issues of a local congregation back in ancient Rome - therefore, the entire book of Romans ought to only address the issues of a local congregation back in ancient Rome, correct? Or did Paul only write, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, certain parts for all Christians, and certain parts just for some?

quote:

No, you do not suppose that at all. So why say so.


It's called "for the sake of discussion." I am taking your belief of a limited interpretation of Romans 14 and applying it to Ephesians 5.

quote:

Yes, that IS your opinion.


And it should be yours, unless you would like to clarify your views on Romans 14 for me.

quote:


Well, I fear then for the doctrine of the Trinity since one does not find that
term in the Bible as such, either.


It's not a matter of words or phrases found directly in Scripture - it's a matter of what Scripture teaches. I have asked for Scripture passages to back up the separation of the law which your suggest. If you would do so, it would add to this discussion immensely.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 5:36:53 PM)

quote:

It addresses your point entirely. You say Romans 14 is meant to only address the issues of a local congregation back in ancient Rome - therefore, the entire book of Romans ought to only address the issues of a local congregation back in ancient Rome, correct? Or did Paul only write, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, certain parts for all Christians, and certain parts just for some?


Uh, no, it does not at all address what I wrote. I began discussing Romans 14 with regard to the fact that you cannot take Scripture out of context - which in fact you did - when you state that chapter applies to moral decisions. If there were no guidelines to interpret Scripture, everyone would just think whatever they wanted. This chapter addresses a very specific problem - it is not meant for general application.

The very issue of meat sacrificed to idols and whether to eat such or not, is derived from the ceremonial law - that is, that law that pointed to Christ - all the laws having to do with Temple service and so on - which were done away with - the veil in the Temple ripping from the top to the bottom at the time of death of Jesus on the cross, was indicative of that fact. It was an illustration that the laws concerning sacrifice were no longer applicable as the perfect sacrifice, the one demanded by God, had finally been made. Do we still offer sacrifice? Do we offer the best of our herd? Hardly. Sacrifice, temple ordinances, instructions on cleanliness etc. all had to do with pointing to Christ - the perfect sacrifice.

So, for the distinction between that which no longer applies - and that which is still in effect - God's Holiness, surely that has not been done away with, it is as you say, convenient to classify. However, not just convenient, but implied as the Scriptures themselves declare that Jesus is the perfect sacrifice and the ordinances of the temple have been done away with.

God has not changed His mind with regards to morality. Romans 14 does not deal with moral applications other than we sin if we think it is a sin and do it anyway. So, if that is the logic we use, as you have implied, along with several others, then it would be a sin for me to keep writing on this thread because I know I have offended someone. Maybe I am offended...would that stop a person from writing? Most likely not!

Romans obviously deals with everyone as chapter one makes that VERY clear. What is the disputable matter in chapter 14? Is it adultery? Is it murder? Is it theft? No - it is DIETARY - not moral. Again, the morality
is in having a clear conscience - or not. Paul also talks about how some people think one day is more sacred than another - not a moral issue.

In v. 20 Paul states Do not destroy the work of God for food. All food is clean - he does NOT say anything you want to do is clean - but food because that was what the dispute in the Roman congregation was about -
He continues about food till the end of v.21 V22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

What things? Tatoos? NO! Food - meat offered to idols - wine - food in genreral (v.20) Not about ANYTHING else. You are free to decide otherwise, but I really do not care to add anything or imply other than what is so plainly written. There are enough passages in Scripture to debate or discuss about without applying assumptions to a passage that has no inference to anything other than what it plainly makes reference to.

V.23 concludes Chapter 14 with another reference to - of all things!! -FOOD. You would think that Paul had been writing about food the whole time.

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires . Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves up to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. FOR SIN SHALL NOT BE YOUR MASTER, because YOU ARE NOT UNDER LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE.
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey - whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to OBEDIENCE, which leads to righteousness?

Are we really free to go ahead and join society in its rebellion against God?
Don't you know that lines are being drawn right now?

God Himself said it this way: This day, decide who YOU will serve?

There really is no freedom to sin - if we could decide our own morality, I believe that scripture would so indicate in a manner that did not involve a diet, so much as behavior.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 5:39:41 PM)

quote:

It's not a matter of words or phrases found directly in Scripture - it's a matter of what Scripture teaches.


Ah, then you do understand. Where are the verses for the doctrine of the Trinity? What I am writing of concerning the Law, is not more obscure than the Doctrine we all believe in - whithout question, even though we literally cannot prove it word for word or even the word itself because it simply does not exist in the canon of Scripure we call the Bible.

But I believe it!



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 5:41:55 PM)

quote:

It's called "for the sake of discussion." I am taking your belief of a limited interpretation of Romans 14 and applying it to Ephesians 5.


I never called it a 'LIMITED' interpretation - it is a specific application -and is simply not strong enough, as such, to bear the weight of the world's moral decision making - saved, or otherwise.



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 5:51:32 PM)

solaflare:

I agree with you about God's unchanging character and holiness, indeed.

My question is really, if one uses the passage in Leviticus to cover all tattoos today, even a faith related one, (even a covering tattoo such as changing the name of an ex-bf eg "Bill" to "Bible"), where in the scheme of interpretation does it leave the fact that the same passage says that men should not trim beards?

I am looking at the question from the wider hermeneutical ramifications, for people who are not Old Testament Jews in the land, but New Testament believers under grace, as per the teachings of Galatians, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

quote:

So with the example given, re. the passage in Leviticus which also talks about not trimming beards, how does one handle that, in your view?


Well, logically, we could say, don't grow a beard and you won't have to trim it.[:D]

What's your take on it? I've said quite a bit[;)]



MrFribbles -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 11:14:40 PM)

solarflare,
I never once suggested Romans 14 could apply to every single moral decision that person makes. That would be absurd. There are clear moral commands in the New Testament. You mention adultery and murder - both of which Christ addresses in Matthew 5! Anyone who could possibly argue that these are acceptable for some Christians has not read the words of Christ sufficiently!
No, rather, my point was that Romans 14 allows freedom for the Christian to make their own decisions on moral issues that are not dealt with in the New Testament - like tattoos, music genres, other media choices, etc. You say that food sacrificed to idols was not a moral issue. I disagree. The "sacrifices" there had nothing to do with the sacrificial system, given that the meat was being sacrificed to pagan god(desse)s, not God. Some Christians were doubtlessly being accused of mingling with the worldly system of their day for partaking in something associated with pagan culture - much like you are accusing tattoos of automatically being associated with the world, if I understand you correctly.
Paul uses the example of food throughout Romans 14 because he often sticks with a single example to make a point. If it really was only addressing the two topics (food and holy days), why didn't he switch back and forth between mentioning food and days throughout, or mention both at the same time?

Also, if you really want me to bring up Scriptures to show the Trinity, I will. It's off-topic, so I'll refrain unless you specifically ask. However, I would be interested in any texts that suggest this division of the Law you suggest, since I can think of none.



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/2/2008 11:28:07 PM)

saraimay75:
Yes, for example, a lady with an ex-bf's name eg, "Bill" tattooed on her might want to modify it to read eg, "Bible" instead, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: saraimay75

What about people who has tattos (sp?) BEFORE there were Christians???



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/3/2008 3:42:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles I have taken the lighter side to answering your post - as I just HAVE to take a break from the he said they said she said. So, please do not take offense at some of my answers. For me, at this point, a little fun was in order. [;)]

solarflare,
I never once suggested Romans 14 could apply to every single moral decision that person makes. That would be absurd. There are clear moral commands in the New Testament. You mention adultery and murder - both of which Christ addresses in Matthew 5! Anyone who could possibly argue that these are acceptable for some Christians has not read the words of Christ sufficiently!

Are you really that confused about what I said? Or are you deflecting the points I made as they really do make a far stronger case than the one you present.


No, rather, my point was that Romans 14 allows freedom for the Christian to make their own decisions on moral issues that are not dealt with in the New Testament

Well, that's new. You certainly have mentionned moral issues often enough with regards to Romans 14, but you have not before stated - to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, as I do not mean to offend - that you are specific only about those NOT brought up by, your example, Jesus.

I would like to remind you, that EVERYONE ACTUALLY IN the NT did not HAVE the NT - they only had the old canon of scripture. So, what did they base their decision on? Did a courier run between one country to the next with this letter? Did they wait and see how the Roman congregation interpreted the letter? And what if you believed in Jesus, but were not a fan of Paul? What then?

- like tattoos, music genres, other media choices, etc.
The "sacrifices" there had nothing to do with the sacrificial system,

Yes, I know. Hence the wording: MEAT SACRIFICED TO IDOLS. That kind of clued me in. [;)]

given that the meat was being sacrificed to pagan god(desse)s, not God.
Some Christians were doubtlessly being accused of mingling with the worldly system of their day for partaking in something associated with pagan culture

Yes, doubtless and the reason Paul brought it up. Duh.

- much like you are accusing tattoos of automatically being associated with the world, if I understand you correctly.

Tell me you are not actually saying what it seems like you are saying. I am accusing tatoos? Oh for shame! How could I?[:o]


Paul uses the example of food throughout Romans 14 because he often sticks with a single example to make a point.

Or, he could actually be making a point about what it sure does seem he is making a point about. [sm=rollingeyes.gif]

If it really was only addressing the two topics (food and holy days), why didn't he switch back and forth between mentioning food and days throughout, or mention both at the same time?

Uh.........logic? No comprendo this one............pleeze explain it to me......seriously


Also, Oooooo A Twofer!

if you really want me to bring up Scriptures to show the Trinity, I will.

Where will you bring them up from? ROTFL sorry......
Well, if you want - they might be different from the ones I have studied...[8|]


quote:

Also, if you really want me to bring up Scriptures to show the Trinity, I will. It's off-topic, so I'll refrain unless you specifically ask. However, I would be interested in any texts that suggest this division of the Law you suggest, since I can think of none.


Okaaaaaaaaay.. I doos that for you. But not 2day. Okay?



MrFribbles -> RE: I need some opinions (7/3/2008 4:13:25 PM)

quote:

Are you really that confused about what I said? Or are you deflecting the points I made as they really do make a far stronger case than the one you present.


I'm not really sure which case you are talking about, so perhaps I am confused. To me, it seems as if you were accusing me of false interpretation and complete moral relativism.

quote:

Well, that's new. You certainly have mentionned moral issues often enough with regards to Romans 14, but you have not before stated - to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, as I do not mean to offend - that you are specific only about those NOT brought up by, your example, Jesus.


It's difficult to keep track... So many issues that are discussed on this board are only brought up because, in my understanding, people do not properly understand Romans 14. I know that I have stated that only matters not directly dealt with in the NT fall into the "gray area," but perhaps I have not yet on this thread.
So, just to clarify, I certainly do NOT believe that every moral decision is left up to the individual believer. However, I do believe that any area of life that does not receive an explicit (for example, do not murder) or implicit (for example, do not lose oneself to recreational drugs) instruction from the New Testament is free to personal interpretation. I believe tattoos fall in the category of something that should be left up to the individual believer.

quote:

I would like to remind you, that EVERYONE ACTUALLY IN the NT did not HAVE the NT - they only had the old canon of scripture. So, what did they base their decision on?


The Holy Spirit, who was, in my understanding, much more active in His workings in terms of giving people direct prophetic (remember, prophecy is more forth-telling than foretelling!) words to instruct the early Church.
Their culture was vastly different from our own. Today, we are so bombarded by the written word that we can hardly imagine living without it. But back then, things were very different. It was a culture that still relied heavily on oral traditions.

quote:

Yes, doubtless and the reason Paul brought it up. Duh.


If this is such a "duh" matter, then why did you immediately connect meat sacrificed to pagan gods with the sacrificial system instituted by the true God?

quote:

Or, he could actually be making a point about what it sure does seem he is making a point about.


So, I suppose you believe James 2:1-7 is only addressing where people should sit?

quote:

Uh.........logic? No comprendo this one............pleeze explain it to me......seriously


You say Paul is only addressing two subjects - holy days and food. In Romans 14, holy days are only mentioned in the first few verses, whereas food is mentioned throughout. If Paul was only addressing two subjects and excluding all others, why are holy days not mentioned throughout Romans 14?

quote:

Well, if you want


Not especially, since it would be getting grossly off-topic. But if you want to start a thread about it (perhaps in "God" or "Bible"), I might swing by.

quote:

Okaaaaaaaaay.. I doos that for you.


Please do, at your earliest pleasure.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/3/2008 4:36:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles

quote:

Are you really that confused about what I said? Or are you deflecting the points I made as they really do make a far stronger case than the one you present.


I'm not really sure which case you are talking about, so perhaps I am confused. To me, it seems as if you were accusing me of false interpretation and complete moral relativism.

Hush now! I would not do that - besides, I'd probably be kicked off the boards!! Then I would have to do time on [sm=eek.gif] that forum that shall not be named

quote:

Well, that's new. You certainly have mentionned moral issues often enough with regards to Romans 14, but you have not before stated - to the best of my knowledge, correct me if I am wrong, as I do not mean to offend - that you are specific only about those NOT brought up by, your example, Jesus.


It's difficult to keep track... So many issues that are discussed on this board are only brought up because, in my understanding, people do not properly understand Romans 14. I know that I have stated that only matters not directly dealt with in the NT fall into the "gray area," but perhaps I have not yet on this thread.
So, just to clarify, I certainly do NOT believe that every moral decision is left up to the individual believer. However, I do believe that any area of life that does not receive an explicit (for example, do not murder) or implicit (for example, do not lose oneself to recreational drugs) instruction from the New Testament is free to personal interpretation. I believe tattoos fall in the category of something that should be left up to the individual believer.


Well, that's a decent answer and all, but too serious!


quote:

I would like to remind you, that EVERYONE ACTUALLY IN the NT did not HAVE the NT - they only had the old canon of scripture. So, what did they base their decision on?


The Holy Spirit, who was, in my understanding, much more active in His workings in terms of giving people direct prophetic
(remember, prophecy is more forth-telling than foretelling!) words to instruct the early Church.
Their culture was vastly different from our own. Today, we are so bombarded by the written word that we can hardly imagine living without it.

Yes, and familiarity breeds contempt - I do not mean that to you - but rather the way it is used in the media, mega churches and so. Serious moment there.But back then, things were very different. It was a culture that still relied heavily on oral traditions.

quote:

Yes, doubtless and the reason Paul brought it up. Duh.


If this is such a "duh" matter, then why did you immediately connect meat sacrificed to pagan gods with the sacrificial system instituted by the true God?

'cause I wanted to introduce the word 'duh' to my vocabulary. duh

And NO (I'm being serious now - thought I wouldn't catch that? heh
I MADE no connection from one system to the other. My head hurts just thinking you think I think that. Nuh uh.

quote:

Or, he could actually be making a point about what it sure does seem he is making a point about.


So, I suppose you believe James 2:1-7 is only addressing where people should sit? My head is spinning with retorts for this one - don't do that to me.


quote:

Uh.........logic? No comprendo this one............pleeze explain it to me......seriously


You say Paul is only addressing two subjects - holy days and food. In Romans 14, holy days are only mentioned in the first few verses, whereas food is mentioned throughout. If Paul was only addressing two subjects and excluding all others, why are holy days not mentioned throughout Romans 14?

Before I answer, is this a trick question? [:@]


quote:

Well, if you want


Not especially, since it would be getting grossly off-topic. But if you want to start a thread about it (perhaps in "God" or "Bible"), I might swing by.
Alas, I think we might actually agree on this one

quote:

Okaaaaaaaaay.. I doos that for you.


Please do, at your earliest pleasure.



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/3/2008 5:43:18 PM)

diane:

Okay, but the lady who served at my bank where I have my a/c was both smartly dressed and happened to have a tattoo as well...

I guess it's a matter of the degree and nature of the tattooing and piercing...

Take care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dianetavegia

Tyler, Do think long and hard about the large tattoo. That's something you really cannot easily have removed. You're considering it at age 18. What if you marry a nice gal ten years after that and she really dislikes you having a tribute to your mom on your back? A smaller tat would suffice, would it not?

Also, our 31 year old son discovered that piercings cause people to look at you as a non professional person, meaning you'll get a job at Burger King but not in corporate America. Don't overstretch those ear lobes if you ever expect to get a great job to support your future family. Our son removed his lip piercings and found it quite easy to get his foot in doors that had been firmly shut previously.



MrFribbles -> RE: I need some opinions (7/3/2008 5:54:23 PM)

quote:


Well, that's a decent answer and all, but too serious!


I have been known to be serious from time to time. ; )

quote:

I MADE no connection from one system to the other. My head hurts just thinking you think I think that. Nuh uh.


I will attempt to quote what led me to this conclusion.

quote:

The very issue of meat sacrificed to idols and whether to eat such or not, is derived from the ceremonial law - that is, that law that pointed to Christ - all the laws having to do with Temple service and so on


Here, unless I am mistaken, you are equating meat sacrificed to idols with the sacrifices of the Temple. Am I incorrect?

quote:

My head is spinning with retorts for this one - don't do that to me.


It seems fair to me. You say Romans 14 only addresses the matters directly addressed, so it follows logically (I know, you're not a big fan of logic) that you would reach the same conclusions from other passages that also only address certain aspects of an issue. If Romans 14 is only about food and days, then James 2:1-7 should only be about seating arrangements.

quote:

Before I answer, is this a trick question?


Nope, I'm genuinely interested in how you'll explain it.

quote:

Alas, I think we might actually agree on this one


It has been known to happen. ; D



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/3/2008 6:03:51 PM)

I guess different people have various personal tastes, which is okay (unless it's really over the top...)
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaleHawkWoman


I wear different kinds of earrings in my pierced ears and prefer the dangly kind. ...Pierced ears are the norm even in the church, so I don't see why this is even an issue.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/6/2008 3:29:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk

I guess different people have various personal tastes, which is okay (unless it's really over the top...)
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaleHawkWoman


I wear different kinds of earrings in my pierced ears and prefer the dangly kind. ...Pierced ears are the norm even in the church, so I don't see why this is even an issue.




??????????????????????????



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/6/2008 3:34:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

quote:

ORIGINAL: faroukfarouk

I guess different people have various personal tastes, which is okay (unless it's really over the top...)
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaleHawkWoman


I wear different kinds of earrings in my pierced ears and prefer the dangly kind. ...Pierced ears are the norm even in the church, so I don't see why this is even an issue.




??????????????????????????

zzzzzzzz......



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/6/2008 3:37:40 PM)

quote:

quote:

I MADE no connection from one system to the other. My head hurts just thinking you think I think that. Nuh uh.

I will attempt to quote what led me to this conclusion.

quote:

The very issue of meat sacrificed to idols and whether to eat such or not, is derived from the ceremonial law - that is, that law that pointed to Christ - all the laws having to do with Temple service and so on

Here, unless I am mistaken, you are equating meat sacrificed to idols with the sacrifices of the Temple. Am I incorrect?



No, I am not making that comparison.

I am referring to the fact that the Jews would have considered meat sacrificed to idols as unclean and therefore, should not be eaten.
My emphasis is on the disagreement between acceptable and not-acceptable, with chapter 14 being a direct response to this conflict within the congregation in Rome.

Meat sacrificed to idols would have been part of a pagan ritual.



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/6/2008 3:38:56 PM)

quote:

zzzzzzzz......


That's what I thought



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/6/2008 3:40:55 PM)

quote:

(I know, you're not a big fan of logic)


Depends on who is using it and whether or not they actually make sense with the application.



faroukfarouk -> RE: I need some opinions (7/6/2008 3:45:53 PM)

solarflare:

So you would always link tattoos with bad morals, would you? I see.

Not everyone would make that connection, I guess, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: solarflare

Tatoos? NO!



solarflare -> RE: I need some opinions (7/6/2008 3:46:02 PM)

quote:

It seems fair to me. You say Romans 14 only addresses the matters directly addressed, so it follows logically (I know, you're not a big fan of logic) that you would reach the same conclusions from other passages that also only address certain aspects of an issue. If Romans 14 is only about food and days, then James 2:1-7 should only be about seating arrangements.



LOL - but not what I think. First of all, Romans 14 IS addressing faith - BUT with a very specific application, again, for the little problem they were having in Rome. The problem I have with making broad applications from this chapter, is that AGAIN you cannot take one chapter from the NT and us it in such a broad application. ESPECIALLY when the NT was not even written at the time this letter was sent, so , again they were teaching and quoting from OT scripture.


Well, I still want to get back to the law issues, so, till next time.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI