Origins and Morality (Full Version)

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



Message

MrFribbles -> Origins and Morality (6/27/2008 2:50:49 PM)

This question came up during a discussion about tattoos, and since it would be getting off-topic to discuss it there, I decided to start a new thread.
The basic question is - can something's origins determine whether or not a Christian should participate in/partake of it? For example (since this is what brought up the question, I figure it would make a good example...), tattoos have pagan origins - does that mean the modern Christian should not get tattoos? Or another favorite - Christmas is celebrated on a day that used to be a pagan holiday, so should Christians not celebrate Christmas?

Also, please don't get hung up on the examples, there are threads for those individual topics already. They're just examples!



mvic -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/27/2008 4:41:08 PM)

I suspect many will disagree with me ... here goes:

Forgetting the two examples of tattoos or celebrating Christmas (as you suggest); the origin of something is immaterial as to whether Christians should participate or partake in it.

A more pertinent question would be: is that thing acceptable in the eyes of God? Or, put it more bluntly: would Jesus partake or participate in this thing if He were here right now?

If the answer to these questions is YES; then it is OK for Christians to do likewise.



DougHorton -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/27/2008 4:45:16 PM)

Do tattoos have pagan origins? How do we know Moses or Abraham did not have tattoos? I would not be surprised if Sarah, Rachel or Rebekkah had them. They are often considered marks of beauty and wealth even today. Cutting for the worship of idols was forbidden.

What do we say to our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters who have a cross tattoo to separate them from Muslims? "Sorry, brother, but not only have you separated yourself from Muslims, but you can't be considered Christian now, either." I'm afraid the persecution they live under is more of a testimony FROM GOD of their faith than our lack of tattoos.

No, the origin of a practice does not make it moral or immoral. Romans 14 makes that clear. Christ is Lord of ALL. ALL authority was given to Him. We can take a blatantly pagan ritual and redeem it for God's glory, as long as it does not violate His moral law.

The real issue: If it cannot be done in faith, it is sin.



Qtman -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/27/2008 4:48:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mvic

I suspect many will disagree with me ... here goes:

Forgetting the two examples of tattoos or celebrating Christmas (as you suggest); the origin of something is immaterial as to whether Christians should participate or partake in it.

A more pertinent question would be: is that thing acceptable in the eyes of God? Or, put it more bluntly: would Jesus partake or participate in this thing if He were here right now?

If the answer to these questions is YES; then it is OK for Christians to do likewise.



I'm sorry but this statement would rule out many things if not all things. For one unless God said in his word it is not acceptable then we do not know what is acceptable. And none of us have any idea whatsoever what Jesus would do if He were here today.



DougHorton -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/27/2008 5:39:22 PM)

Perhaps a better argument would be whatever God does not forbid is allowed.

However, there must be a balance. Some things are inappropriate, even if allowed. For example, wearing swimwear to church.



URForgiven -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/27/2008 5:54:44 PM)

Christianity has along history of taking the things of the world and "Christianizing" them. Taking what was once a symbol of evil and turning it to the glory of God.

On an individual level, everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Whether something is beneficial or not has to do with the motivation and as Doug said, "If it cannot be done in faith, it is sin."

Peace



PaleHawkWoman -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/27/2008 6:03:57 PM)

Unless your ministering at the beach...

Cultural issues have long been a source of division in the Euro-American church, and usually not because of Biblical decree but because of ethnocentrism, general ignorance, and lack of communication.

There's a resource by Monte Ohia called "Cross-Cultural Evangelism" available through WICONI Ministries. It might giveyou some insight on how to view cultural practices as redeemed by faith in Christ.



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 12:25:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
The basic question is - can something's origins determine whether or not a Christian should participate in/partake of it?

There are several Scriptures that clearly state no person can turn an unholy thing into a holy thing. If it begins as evil, if it was originally made to be evil, if it originated to glorify another deity (which means it is evil), no human being, by their will, can turn it into a holy thing.



fiat_lux -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 12:30:38 AM)

quote:

There are several Scriptures that clearly state no person can turn an unholy thing into a holy thing. If it begins as evil, if it was originally made to be evil, if it originated to glorify another deity (which means it is evil), no human being, by their will, can turn it into a holy thing.

I'm not sure I agree. In 1 Corinthians 8, for example, Paul argues that there is nothing inherently wrong about eating food sacrificed to idols, since we do not believe in the power of such idols - though we ought to be cautious about doing so anyways. In Acts 17 Paul even used a pagan idol to begin his explanation of the gospel of Christ.



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 12:33:56 AM)

Well, that is your opinion, and disagreement is not inherently a bad thing, in my opinion.

However, when the Scriptures appear to us to disagree, there is nothing wrong with the Scripture: there is something wrong with our understanding of the Scriptures.



MrFribbles -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 1:22:46 AM)

quote:

There are several Scriptures that clearly state no person can turn an unholy thing into a holy thing.


Would you mind sharing their references? I'm sure it would add immensely to the discussion.



Bluethread -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 7:16:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiat_lux

quote:

There are several Scriptures that clearly state no person can turn an unholy thing into a holy thing. If it begins as evil, if it was originally made to be evil, if it originated to glorify another deity (which means it is evil), no human being, by their will, can turn it into a holy thing.

I'm not sure I agree. In 1 Corinthians 8, for example, Paul argues that there is nothing inherently wrong about eating food sacrificed to idols, since we do not believe in the power of such idols - though we ought to be cautious about doing so anyways. In Acts 17 Paul even used a pagan idol to begin his explanation of the gospel of Christ.


Eating second hand meat at the market and going to the pagan festival are two different things. Also, taking a shared concept to elaberating on it and purchasing an idol to decorate ones home are also two differnt things.



Bluethread -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 7:20:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: URForgiven

Christianity has along history of taking the things of the world and "Christianizing" them. Taking what was once a symbol of evil and turning it to the glory of God.

On an individual level, everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Whether something is beneficial or not has to do with the motivation and as Doug said, "If it cannot be done in faith, it is sin."

Peace


Just because some have done these things in the past does not make them right. In the book of Judges we have several examples of the bad things that can happen when one compromises with the practices of the nations. In Ha Torah, the Balaam and the gold calf incidents stand out.



URForgiven -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 9:50:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: URForgiven

Christianity has along history of taking the things of the world and "Christianizing" them. Taking what was once a symbol of evil and turning it to the glory of God.

On an individual level, everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Whether something is beneficial or not has to do with the motivation and as Doug said, "If it cannot be done in faith, it is sin."

Peace


Just because some have done these things in the past does not make them right. In the book of Judges we have several examples of the bad things that can happen when one compromises with the practices of the nations. In Ha Torah, the Balaam and the gold calf incidents stand out.


There is a difference between mixing or compromising, and taking something negative captive and changing it to a positive.

And isn't that exactly what God does by taking what Satan means for evil and turning it to a use that is good?

Peace



MrFribbles -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 1:30:57 PM)

quote:

In Ha Torah, the Balaam and the gold calf incidents stand out.


Those are entirely different situations than this thread should be addressing. That is not taking something with questionable backgrounds and using them for God - it's taking something with questionable backgrounds and using them against God.



hymnHIM -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 4:03:53 PM)

quote:


Do tattoos have pagan origins? How do we know Moses or Abraham did not have tattoos? I would not be surprised if Sarah, Rachel or Rebekkah had them. They are often considered marks of beauty and wealth even today. Cutting for the worship of idols was forbidden
.

" You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD." Lev. 19:27 NKJV .Clearly Moses didn't have tattoos, to assume otherwise is irrational. As for Sarah, Rachel or Rebekkah... come on, your an apologist, you know better.......

quote:

What do we say to our Middle Eastern brothers and sisters who have a cross tattoo to separate them from Muslims? "Sorry, brother, but not only have you separated yourself from Muslims, but you can't be considered Christian now, either." I'm afraid the persecution they live under is more of a testimony FROM GOD of their faith than our lack of tattoos.

If what you are saying is that they are not "Christians" because of a tattoo, then you are right, but does that make it morally right? I do agree with your last statement, but i want you to consider your argument. Your using a strawman. This question is on morality, not legitimacy. The question isn't whether or not they are Christians, but is this practice moral or not.
quote:

No, the origin of a practice does not make it moral or immoral. Romans 14 makes that clear. Christ is Lord of ALL. ALL authority was given to Him. We can take a blatantly pagan ritual and redeem it for God's glory, as long as it does not violate His moral law.


I understand what you are saying, but isnt it against His moral law, as He described it in scripture? By tattooing a cross instead of a skull, does that change His command? If His moral law changes, imagine the difficulty in trying to make sure were "updated" with those changes.

quote:

The real issue: If it cannot be done in faith, it is sin.


I do agree. Again though, I have to ask, what does this REALLY mean? Can this statement make the commands of God so clearly stated, different? If a Christian does it, its okay? This is relativism with a dash of emotionalism and a touch of human understanding/skepticism.

Also, I will not discuss tattoos in this thread as I know there is a one-stop for it. I simply wanted to address an error.
God bless,
Dan



MrFribbles -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 4:23:51 PM)

quote:

Also, I will not discuss tattoos in this thread as I know there is a one-stop for it.


A bit too late for that. ; )
This is why I tried to emphasize the importance of not getting hung up on my examples! This is not a thread for tattoos! Please don't turn it into that.



hymnHIM -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 4:26:11 PM)

quote:

I'm sorry but this statement would rule out many things if not all things. For one unless God said in his word it is not acceptable then we do not know what is acceptable. And none of us have any idea whatsoever what Jesus would do if He were here today.


Wha???? Of Course we do. Jesus is God, and God inspired scripture. Where is the problem in that? Is what Paul wrote in 1st Cor. 6:12 contradictory to God's moral law? Has God changed? Obviously not. Our salvation does not hinge on tattoo's, beer, language, etc... but our growth does. Jesus said "If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15. This answers all the questions. So what was Jesus's commands? To Love God first, others as ourselves. So to love God first, means to obey Him. This is profoundly simple, until you start qualifing it with statements like " we dont know what Jesus likes" or "how do I know what Jesus be like in todays culture". He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
God bless,
Dan



MrFribbles -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 4:35:25 PM)

quote:

So to love God first, means to obey Him. This is profoundly simple


Except for the varying differences on how to best obey God. Not everyone believes in living under the Old Testament law in the way you seem to.



hymnHIM -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 4:39:01 PM)

quote:

A bit too late for that. ; )
This is why I tried to emphasize the importance of not getting hung up on my examples! This is not a thread for tattoos! Please don't turn it into that.

I apologize. I cannot think of an example of how we can turn something wrong into something good. If scripture tells us "don't do it" then we shouldn't. This goes for your examples, or any other that I can think of. Now, I do believe God can, for example our circumstances, or the enemies plans. But contrary to God's command is our own desire. The bible also clearly teaches on this, " the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak". Modesty is taught, human interaction is taught, our relationship with God is taught. Love in its very definition/embodiment is taught. While we may be unclear, if we error, wisdom tells us to error to the side of caution.
God bless,
Dan



hymnHIM -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 5:00:23 PM)

quote:

Except for the varying differences on how to best obey God. Not everyone believes in living under the Old Testament law in the way you seem to.

No, I am saying the God of the old testament is the God of the new. When did God say, through revelation, prophesy or otherwise, "MY RIGHTEOUS STANDARD HAS CHANGED, GO DO WHAT YOU THINK IS MORALLY GOOD!" This is what some respondents have posted, in essence. This is the definition of relativism, its outworking you can see in todays church. Its a free for all. We should be wary of an isogesis of scripture to prove what we are doing is okay, instead we should read the whole of scripture to see what is God's will for us. We are not our own, bought at a price. Paul, when refering to himself said he was a "servant to Christ", a "slave"- (doulos) to God and not while imprisoned in the flesh. Do you know what doulos means? One who's will is lost in anothers. Paul obeyed God. Peter obeyed God, John obeyed God. I would ask, on what basis does anyone think to change the commands of God?
God bless you,
Dan



MrFribbles -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 6:00:43 PM)

quote:

If scripture tells us "don't do it" then we shouldn't.


So you don't eat shrimp or pork? Your clothes are all of the same fabric? You do not touch anything a woman on her period has touched? You do absolutely no labor on any Saturday? Do you protest against farmers who use mules and who sow two different products in the same field? Do you clip the hairs on the side of your head or trim the edges of your beard?

quote:

But contrary to God's command is our own desire.


Absolutely. The question is not whether or not to follow God's commands, but rather what those commands are for the Christian.

quote:

When did God say, through revelation, prophesy or otherwise, "MY RIGHTEOUS STANDARD HAS CHANGED, GO DO WHAT YOU THINK IS MORALLY GOOD!"


Have you read Romans 14?

quote:

This is the definition of relativism


No - relativism is the denial of any absolute truth. Nobody here had professed that.

quote:

Do you know what doulos means? One who's will is lost in anothers.


When it is used metaphorically, sure. But you forgot part of it - "one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men." It implies nothing about whether or not something is inherently sinful based on its origin.

quote:

I would ask, on what basis does anyone think to change the commands of God?


Goodness, someone had best tell Jesus to take back Mark 7:19 then.



9drtr -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 6:17:42 PM)

Oh great! Another OT legalist.



Covaan_Meshuga -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 7:43:14 PM)

So this is where the problems come in: when people discount what G-d has had written for us, calling His Word legalistic, even though the Apostolic Scriptures refer to it time and time again. The apostles did not find it legalistic. Messiah did not find it legalistic. Do we know more than they?

It is One Book. The division that appears between Malachi and Matthew is a false division originally placed there by a known heretic -- someone who is even known by the churches as a heretic! -- yet people hang on to this division. What Scriptures did Messiah use to explain His Godhood, His earthly life, His death, and His resurrection? Not Matthew! Not John! He used what people love to call legalistic!

What Scriptures do Apostolic Scriptures writers advise are the ones to educate us regarding sin? The Torah -- what people love to call legalistic!

What Scriptures did Messiah say would never pass away until heaven and earth pass away? Torah! -- what people call legalistic!

G-d help us all! This is not legalistic; it is not Law: it is in the Scriptures many use to discount Torah and those who love Torah!

These same ones will belittle us for following Torah, when the Scriptures they claim to love clearly tell us not to discount one another regarding when we observe the holy days and how they are observed! And the holidays they do this over were not even used yet within the churches, when the Scriptures were written -- especially since there were no churches yet when it was written! The translation calls them "churches," but a decent translation would not use churches -- they were congregations, many of which were in synagogues, mountainsides, fields, and homes!

We need to get ourselves together, get ourselves into the Word, stop harassing one another, start caring about one another, and just start doing what Messiah did! What did He do? Read the Book -- the whole Book! It will tell you.

What He did is a lot more important to your walk than what anyone is going to sit about imagining He did!

Read the Bible!



MrFribbles -> RE: Origins and Morality (6/28/2008 9:03:10 PM)

This thread is getting grossly off-topic (which, I will admit, I am partially responsible for). There is a one-stop thread for keeping the law or not - please take any further discussion of that topic there!



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI