ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

What Is Moral Law

How do we define moral law and with what is it contrasted with?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Ten Commandments Bible Quiz
 ---leonia on 5/19/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



Atheist, testimony given by Gillian Brown,(the producer) agrees with that given by Philip Hohnen, cameraman and interviewer. Their testimony agrees with the video of the whole event, which shows Dawkins stumped and looking about apparently searching for an answer, for 19 seconds. The unedited video then shows Dawkins asking that the camera be switched off while he has a think. The interview recommences and Dawkins gives his now famous nonAnswer. He has since also written a mutliple page nonAnswer.

The point is that Brown, Hohnen and the video are in agreement. But Dawkins has a different version. Have a guess who is telling the truth?

Yesterday I viewed the uncut footage on the web.
---Warwick on 5/30/11


"Atheist is a dishonest slanderer who cannot back up his offensive claim."


I have never made that claim. What I have tried to communicate is that people of all religions and gods use their beliefs as an excuse to do whatever it is that they want to do. It matters not what their scripture, god, son of god, prophet of god, minister of god, priest of god, or pedagog profiting of god, said or didn't say. It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, Allah, etc.

You seem to have a obsessive compulsive need to twist my words into another meaning to slander me. What's up with that?
---atheist on 5/30/11


\\he blames various religions for giving people an excuse to do evil. \\

My observation has been that atheism is a crutch and excuse for the immoral, lazy, and people who are mad at God for some reason.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/30/11


Pendant,

BTW, that people, of any and all religions, often misuse their god or scripture to justify their beliefs, political positions, or worse as a good reason to go to war, is one of my major objections to religions. Using god to hate is just plain wrong, especially when from my perspective god is imaginary.

I do understand the comfort that religions give people and the sense of community and support that religious organizations provide people.
---atheist on 5/30/11


Pedant, or pendant as Atheist calls you, Atheist is antiReligion, he blames various religions for giving people an excuse to do evil. Christ gives no one any excuse to do evil, only multiple reasons for doing good. Atheist is not blaming man for doing evil but, in our case blaming Jesus for giving people an excuse to do evil. But Jesus gives no one any excuse for evil, only, and always the opposite.

Atheist is a dishonest slanderer who cannot back up his offensive claim.

Atheist again I ask what in all that Jesus has said and done can be used as an excuse for evil?
---Warwick on 5/30/11




Pendant,

Thank you for that,---I was stumped as to what Warwick was talking about.

Warwick, Dawkins explains what happened in the link referenced below.

Jerry, personally I know that many of religious belief are afraid of the theory of evolution and try to denigrate it by falsely stating nonsense such as it say humans have ancestors such as frogs. They also claim that I must be in evolution or god...
---atheist on 5/30/11


Pedant,
I could not agree more and even Jesus forewarned of it.
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
"And that is absolutely true." (Pedant, 5/30/11).
---Nana on 5/30/11


The moral law is the 10 commandments. It is a permenant expression of God's character and is valid for all people all of the time.
It can be contrasted with the Civil laws as well as the Ceremonial laws.
---Pierre on 5/30/11


Warwick ... Saying 'Jesus should not be used as an excuse or reason to do bad things" is not the same as saying that Jesus has commanded anyone to do bad things.

I think that Atheist has previously agreed that the man Jesus did not ask anyone to do bad things.

However, he has said man has used God and Jesus as an excuse to do bad things. And that is absolutely true.
---Pedant on 5/30/11


As regards supposed creationist deception concerning the interview with Richard Dawkins on 'From a Frog to a Prince,' I repeat the second camera was not stopped, and recorded everything, that Dawkins was stumped by a question he should be able to answer (if evolution is fact.) He looked stunned for 19 seconds then asked if the camera could be stopped so he could think about it, then came back with a non answer. This is not hearsay or idea born of bias, but fact. Many people have seen the unedited 2nd video and know Dawkins was stumped and there was no deception involved.

However some people are not interested in facts.

Sadly, because of restrictions here on this site, I cannot provide a link where this video can be viewed.
---Warwick on 5/30/11




francis,the differences you speak of between socities is man made,they dont exist in Gods word or thinking,most involve custom,but today the world does have a big problem with people who actually believe that something can be wrong for one person and not another,this to is false.
---tom2 on 5/30/11


A theist: Second request:

Name one thing that you personally know about Evolution that is true.
---jerry6593 on 5/30/11


Atheist, you wrote "My objection to others' belief is that believer can say or do some really dumb or terrible things and do them in the name of god, absolving themselves of personal responsibility. "God" should not be used as an excuse or reason to do bad things."

As you are on a Christian website you are (in our case) saying that Jesus "should not be used as an excuse or reason to do bad things." You have written this nonsense before, and I have on a few occasions asked you to support your claim. I do it again: What "bad things" or "terrible things" has Jesus commanded anyone do?

---Warwick on 5/30/11


Warwcik: "Atheist, regarding your previous comments please show where Jesus has commanded His followers do evil?"


What are you talking about?
---atheist on 5/29/11


Atheist, regarding your previous comments please show where Jesus has commanded His followers do evil?

BTW at the time Dawkins was quoted in the Australian Sceptic "The tape having stopped, (at his request)I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house."

However as Gillian Brown (producer) has pointed out the second camera shows Dawkins did not ask them to leave (his lie) and was unable to give an answer providing any true scientific (i.e. observable and testable) evidence that mutations and natural selection can add genetic information to the genome! If anyone could surely supply such an answer Dawkins is the man. He gave an answer completely unrelated to the question!
---Warwick on 5/29/11


"Creationist deception" by Bob Carling Sep1998

I read the article referred to below with a heavy heart. It tells the story of an Australian TV crew who interviewed Richard Dawkins in his home. It seems that the crew misled Dawkins as to their intentions...the footage...misused to imply that Dawkins was 'stumped'. He and fellow atheists are livid...to use footage obtained deceitfully to then imply that Dawkins cannot answer questions about evolution (which is what the article says happened) is no way to communicate the love of Christ....

Potentially much damage can be done by Christians who do this sort of thing.
---atheist on 5/29/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Atheist, you make assumptions. As you may know this is quite an old story. If I remember correctly Frog to Prince was released in 1998. I remember Dawkins version of events and a further attempt at answering the question was published in the Australian Sceptic. I read his 'answer' but could find no answer. A scientist friend qualified in this field, agreed there was no answer.

I have read quite a few things Dawkins, has written, plus videos of debates and interviews. So it is deceitful of you to say otherwise.

You claim Christians have misrepresented the case. Please therefore give me a specific example of Christian misrepresentation.
---Warwick on 5/29/11


\\GOD is not a viable option so it must be a natural event. That is a fundamental assumption.\\

My assumption is that God normally works through natural processes that he himself set up.

\\Now assumptions on both sides can blind people to evidence. \\

Good point, Samuel. As ever, the voice of reason!

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/29/11


Samuel,

Thank you for taking the time to read some of Dawkins' response. That is much more than either Jerry or Warwick are willing to do. It is obvious that there are attempts on both sides to misrepresent the positions of the others, and acknowledgement of that fact is the adult thing to do.

I have read some Bible Prophesy, my favorite is "A HISTORY OF THE END OF THE WORLD," by Jonathan Kirsch. He has written many books on the Bible. I went to school with him, and only recently discovered his authorship. He was a scholar even in the 3rd grade.
---atheist on 5/29/11


Dear Atheist

I read some of Dawkins responce. First I do not believe it is a real conspiracy to promote evoluiton. An atheist cannot using science believe in GOD. So a way for life to come about must be figured out and tried to be understood how it would work. GOD is not a viable option so it must be a natural event. That is a fundamental assumption.

Now assumptions on both sides can blind people to evidence. A study of science and history will prove that.

The Newspaper recently reported that the amount of junk DNA has been in fact shown to be vastly overestimated.

What do you know about Bible prophecy?
---Samuel on 5/29/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Atheist, you attempt to spread falsehood. I was peripherally involved in making 'Frog to Prince' and assure you Dawkins was asked a fair question but could not answer. The unedited tape shows Dawkins stunned, searching for an answer for a long time. Some of this was edited out as the producers had no desire to present him as witless, but to demonstrate he couldn't answer. He asked for time to think then came back with a non answer.

Dawkins later made dishonest claims about the interview but was proven wrong as second record of the whole event was made independantly!

Your false accusations are nothing but bluster born of ignorance, bolstered by a (particularly antiChristian)religious intolerance.
---Warwick on 5/29/11


Atheist you write "there is no evidence of god." On the contrary Paul (Acts 17) attests there are plenty of gods, but only one Creator God.

That same Paul says (Romans 1:20) proof of God, as Creator is overwhelming, "clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Minus our Creator we are left with the belief that everything came into existence on its own! That Earths lifeless minerals did likewise, becoming, by pure chance, self-replicating life! Incredible.

You continue to say believers in God do evil in the name of God. But you have never been able to tell us where Jesus commands evil. You are therefore being dishonest in repeating this baseless claim.
---Warwick on 5/29/11


A theist ""Can you not list even one plausible mechanism by which one species of animal transforms into a completely new one."---Jerry

"This is not part of the theory" -A theist

I didn't think you were capable of answering a straightforward question, but instead respond with some irrelevant blather.

If the operative mechanism for species creation is not part of Darwin's theory espoused in his "Origin of Species", I don't know what is. Or maybe you've got a new theory in mind. Love to hear it.
---jerry6593 on 5/29/11


A theist: //Shame on you and others who continue with this lie.
---atheist on 5/28/11//

Shame on you! It is Evolution that is the lie!

Name one thing that you personally know about Evolution that is true.
---jerry6593 on 5/29/11


Send a Free Fall Ecard


Warwick,
You continue to engage in misinformation, google:

"The Information Challenge

by Richard Dawkins

In September 1997"

AND

"Creationist Deception Exposed

by Barry Williams"

13 years later, you and your cohorts still falsify what happened and slander the man. Is your fear of the theory of evolution so great that you are willing to lower yourself to such dishonesty?

Shame on you and others who continue with this lie.
---atheist on 5/28/11


Atheist the point regarding Dawkins and the interview is that he was dumfounded by the question. Totally unable to answer what should have been an easy question for him if microbe-to-man evolution is a fact. Have a look at the video 'Frog to Prince' and see his confusion.

BTW the video was edited to shorten the time he spent looking lost and stunned, as the aim was not to embarass him but to adequately show his innability to answer.

On release I showed the video at a conference and the laughter directed at this vitriolic unpleasant man's innability to answer, was loud indeed.

He forbids Creationists to interview him because, different to the fawning leftist media, they have a habit of asking those 'difficult' questions.
---Warwick on 5/28/11


I agree with Atheist. It would be a good idea to read Dawkins "Greatest Show on Earth. But having done so get a copy of Dr Jonathan Sarfati's book 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?'

As one reviewer wrote: 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?' meets Dawkins 'The Greatest Show on Earth head-on.' Dr Sarfati firmly and comprehensively answers Dawkins challenge, chapter after chapter, covering a vast range of disciplines in his trademark crisp, clear style. He convincingly shows, for those with ears to hear, that to believe the Bibles account of Creation/Fall/Redemption straightforwardly not only does not commit intellectual suicide, it is if anything the intellectually superior position.'
---Warwick on 5/28/11


"Can you not list even one plausible mechanism by which one species of animal transforms into a completely new one."---Jerry

This is not part of the theory, I think you know so, therefore you are "nattering"---"talking without purpose". Unless you are engaged a campaign of misinformation. Or you could be ignorant. If I called you an ignoramus, that would be name calling. Did you read Dawkin's article?
---atheist on 5/28/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


A theist: Like Dawkins, you refuse to address the scientific questions posed to you, instead choosing a childish rant of deriding rhetoric. Can you not list even one plausible mechanism by which one species of animal transforms into a completely new one. You do know what a genome is, don't you? And no, name-calling is not an answer - it is an admission of your ignorance.
---jerry6593 on 5/28/11


Samuel,

First,these statements are just Jerry's opinions of what he thinks he knows about the theory of evolution and the relevancy of people in the scientific community regarding the credibility of the theory. To begin he implies that there is a conspiracy afoot to trick the ignorant into believing it, followed by statements presented by irrefutable fact.

In my opinion this is nothing but misinformation.

I cannot believe that scientists, using the same system of critical review, conspire to support a falsifiable evolution theory, but then are professionally more critical of quantum theory.

I have no idea what "mechanism" he is looking for...
---Atheist on 5/27/11


Jerry,

I expect that you will go nattering yet again about "information" and particularly Dawkins and he being "unable" to answer a question about it during a film interview. Google the following {

The Information Challenge
By Richard Dawkins
In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome. It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way...

}
---atheist on 5/27/11


Jerry,

Thank for those bits of misinformation...
---atheist

could you please prove this statment?
---Samuel on 5/27/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Jerry,

Thank for those bits of misinformation...
---atheist on 5/27/11


A: "Most have a misunderstanding of what "science" is."

Science is NOT mere speculation, conjecture, imagination, fraud and false, deriding propaganda. Yet, that is all that supports the theory of Evolution. Many attempts have been made to "prove" evolution scientifically, but all have falied miserably.

It is a scientific fact that in order for evolution of the species to occur (not just mendellian genetical variation within a basic "kind"), new (and viable) information must be "created" within the genome. No known mechanism exists for this "creation" - Not natural selection, not mutations, not even flying spaghetti monsters.

Can you name such a mechanism?
---jerry6593 on 5/27/11


You are right Atheist on both your points.

On the other hand many proevolutionist overstate their case and neglect to state how much speculation and guesswork is involved in their statements.

Have you ever read how Dragonflies used to have a 24 inch wing span and roaches were over 12 inches long?

In one paper I read on how this happened the writer spoke of how by increasing the oxygen level you can get this to happen and how this can be proved in a lab.

I had not quarrel with his point except one. When you increase oxygen level to that height it causes one spark to create massive fires.

Even put a lite cigarette in a high oxygen atmosphere?
---Samuel on 5/26/11


Samuel,

Yes I have. Most have a misunderstanding of what "science" is. Some I believe are against evolution theory because they find it threatening to the basis of their religious belief.
---atheist on 5/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Dear Atheist

I used to believe in evolution before becoming a Christian. I have had to teach it science classes. Now I teach math. I have watched a number of Discovery shows and National Geographic shows about evolution and how it works. I also read Discovery Magazine when I get a chance including their articles on evolution.

I watched a show on the origin of life recently. I liked the point where they used the reference to a box in which something happened they do not know how and life came out.

Have you ever read any critics of evolution?
---Samuel on 5/25/11


Samuel,

I suggest, if you have a library card that you get either, "The Greatest Show on Earth", or "Why Evolution is True." I get the audio versions for my Ipod. I am listening to the latter today. so I get through 1-2 books a week.

This is a great way to read books. I even listen to books by people whose positions I know I disagree with.
---atheist on 5/25/11


socially acceptable behavior,or as a discription simply stated whats right or wrong in behavior of individuals.
---tom2 on 5/24/11
With the understanding that what is wrong or right in societies vary from society to society?
---francis on 5/25/11


Atheist true Bill M. did not limit it to christians. He did make a number of points I had to agree with him on.

Second you are correct I was using the popular term for the more correct "Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis."

I had forgotten the important difference.
---Samuel on 5/25/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


If human teeth don't convince him there's a God, nothing will.
---James_L on 5/24/11


Moderator, I sent my final blog/thank you hoping you would post it a day or so ago, I only wanted to say thanks and good bye to CN. I also asked for prayers while I am on my road to recovery. I only ask that you post my farewell & thanks.
---cjmybad on 5/24/11


"...watched the moive regulous...he at least made fun of beliefs he knew.

Survival of the fittest is one of the processes that evolutionist believe advance evolution.---Samuel on 5/24/11

Yes. But Bill Maher, did not limit his scope to only Christian beliefs...

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists, the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection. Google the term and look at the Wikipedia entries.

Then you must not believe in the darwinian theory of evolution and its engine of natural selection.---jerry6593 on 5/24/11

"Survival of the fittest" is not "natural selection." That is disinformation,a straw man argument.
---atheist on 5/24/11


\\Some atheist attribute beliefs to Christians and then make fun of those beliefs.\\

It's called "straw-man argument".

**A theist: " I do not believe "survival of the fittest" in the sense you throw it about"

Then you must not believe in the darwinian theory of evolution and its engine of natural selection. **

I believe Darwin's phrase is "survival of the FIT," which has been corrupted in popular culture into "fittest."

And, as atheist pointed out, in fairness, there are straw-man arguments on both sides. I've seen you use this fallacy a time or two yourself, jerry.

Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 5/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Some atheist attribute beliefs to Christians and then make fun of those beliefs. I watched the moive regulous and he at least made fun of beliefs he knew.

Survival of the fittest is one of the processes that evolutionist believe advance evolution.

Atheists can be humanists or communistts or many other groups. They like Christians are not all of one belief.
---Samuel on 5/24/11


socially acceptable behavior,or as a discription simply stated whats right or wrong in behavior of individuals.
---tom2 on 5/24/11


A theist: " I do not believe "survival of the fittest" in the sense you throw it about"

Then you must not believe in the darwinian theory of evolution and its engine of natural selection. Where does that leave you for a creation paradigm? The flying spaghetti monster again?
---jerry6593 on 5/24/11


Wait a minute! You atheists are the ones who believe that you evolved from the animals by survival of the fittest. To avoid being hypocritical, you should kill and eat the weaker ones around you.
---jerry6593 on 5/21/11

Still the same. Attributing beliefs to other people and then laughing at those beliefs. I do not believe "survival of the fittest" in the sense you throw it about has anything to do with anything.
---atheist on 5/22/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


Is it your belief that there are enough Christians to feed the poor, after eliminating those who believe like Tom2?
---atheist

I do not know. I know many people in this world starve because they have unjust immoral leaders. Others because of conflict caused by people out of greed and pride. I know some poor are that way due to drugs.

I cannot give an answer for all questions. But if people gave the money they spent on Alcohol and drugs to help feed the poor. If people cared about others as they do themselves then we could feed all the poor.

If people lived in love like JESUS taught do you think that we could feed all the world?
---Samuel on 5/22/11


A theist: [Gee, but it's great to have you back!]

"Would it also be your belief that those disable in an accident, and completely unable to work should also starve? Is it your belief that people who cannot afford medical insurance should be allowed to die?"

Wait a minute! You atheists are the ones who believe that you evolved from the animals by survival of the fittest. To avoid being hypocritical, you should kill and eat the weaker ones around you.
---jerry6593 on 5/21/11


According to scripture, in ancient times, God allowed and even encouraged war and rape. In modern society, that is, no doubt, contrary to all codes of morality around the world.

Man's CODE of morality does NOT produce spirit-filled Godly behavior (neither do dress codes or codes of etiquette....'propriety'/properness).

The truly Godly person does not have to be commanded or ordered to be peaceful and just nor obey any codes in order to behave Godly, that is why Jesus abolished the old law that commandments and rules/ordinances should be obeyed...so that we could live happily the "LAW of LIBERTY".

Ephesians 2:15
"by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances".
---more_excellent_way on 5/21/11


Yada, dada, boom, bang, digity whop! Tom Tom who ha swish ping.
---atheist on 5/21/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


---micha9344 on 5/20/11
In the bible, the day before the sabbath is called THE DAY OF PREPARATION: Luke 23:54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.

It is on this day that believers in christ " kindle a fire" and prepare their meals

.
Exodus 16:23 And he said unto them, This [is that] which the LORD hath said, To morrow [is] the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake [that] which ye will BAKE TODAY and seethe that ye will seethe, and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.
Exodus 35: 3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.

GET THE CONTEXT AND DOCTRINE?
---francis on 5/21/11


There is one moral law in 10 parts written in stone by the finger of God.
Contrasted with 1000's of laws written on "paper" by man
---dowanor on 5/21/11


Tom2,

What is an intellectual?
---atheist on 5/21/11


atheist, let's take it a step further. let's say you are the only grocer in a small mining town. they close the mine and the only source of commerce is the mine and local grocery. then, it is morally right for the miners to help themselves to your inventory. their kids might go hungry if they do not.

a man joins n a m b l a, a legally recognized entity. he convinces your son to join in the fun...is that morally ok?
---aka on 5/21/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


athiest,listen,as a believer i know you ca be an intellectual and still live in darkness,doomed,because of your unbelief.try tho any of us may the world is chalk full of injustices,and people who wine and complain by the minute. neither one of us are stupid,of course those who are not able to take care of themselves,and those who are their responsibilty are society obligation,please stop twisting words on EVERY POST YOU ANSWER.
---tom2 on 5/21/11


Tom2,

So it is your belief that there is always work for people to do to feed their family? Would it also be your belief that those disable in an accident, and completely unable to work should also starve? Is it your belief that people who cannot afford medical insurance should be allowed to die?

So a child is born to healthy but lazy Christian parents---should they be allowed to die?

Samuel,


Is it your belief that there are enough Christians to feed the poor, after eliminating those who believe like Tom2?
---atheist on 5/20/11


Tom2,

So it is your belief that there is always work for people to do to feed their family? Would it also be your belief that those disable in an accident, and completely unable to work should also starve? Is it your belief that people who cannot afford medical insurance should be allowed to die?

So a child is born to healthy but lazy Christian parents---should they be allowed to die?

Samuel,


Is it your belief that there are enough Christians to feed the poor, after eliminating those who believe like Tom2?
---atheist on 5/20/11


"The moral law, in a very real sense, defines what it means to be human. So, to be moral or immoral reflects the quality of our humanity."
---Allan on 5/20/11

Agree with your whole blog, very good. Many christians believe that only christianity deals with morality.
I believe as you stated,
"So, to be moral or immoral reflects the quality of our humanity."
By the same token atheist also has morality (from reading his blogs) and from the fact that I doubt that he is any
weird thing like a talking plantain tree.
---Nana on 5/20/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


sorta ironic an athiest commenting on morals,just whee is it you think mans sense of morals comes from?it from that spirit you dont believe in.
---tom2 on 5/20/11


Galatians 5 NIV
13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a], rather, serve one another in love. 14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: Love your neighbor as yourself.[b] 15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
---poopsey on 5/20/11


If you obey the spirit of a moral law. Like the commandment thou shalt not steal. Then you will also obey the letter. To not steal because you love others and do not want to hurt them. The rule becomes part of us. It is not gotten rid of.

Atheist the Bible law also says Christians are to fwws the poor and help them get food. So they do not need to steal.

Now it is true Torah does not tell the laws are different. But as one Rabbi said the Ten Commandmnets are the center and the rest is commentary.

We live in the Christian dispensation. Circusion is now of the heart not flesh.

Now also in history most churches have taught the Sabbath Commandment is a moral law. They just consider Sunday as sabbath.
---Samuel on 5/20/11


Exodus 35:1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These [are] the words which the LORD hath commanded, that [ye] should do them.
2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
3 Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day.
---micha9344 on 5/20/11


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


athiest,scripture says if a man doesn,t work then he doeswn,t eat,neither do his children i guess if he has them,and it also says though shalt not steal,pick on yourself if you apparently dont know GODS WORD.
---tom2 on 5/20/11


athiest ,bottom line if yo steal something,even food its still, sin,but being as you are an athiest i dont expect you to know that.
---tom2 on 5/20/11


Moral adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or RULES of RIGHT CONDUCT or the distinction between right and wrong

MORAL OBLIGATION TO GOD
1. Do not worship other gods.
2. Do not worship idols.
3. Do not misuse God's name.
4. Keep the Sabbath holy.

MORAL OBLIGATION TO NEIGHBOUR
5. Honor your father & mother.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not lie.
10. Do not covet.
---Francis on 5/20/11


If something is a mere observance such as the OT Sabbath, would that be considered a moral law or a ceremonial law?
---leonia on 5/20/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Moral Law (God's law) is found in the first 5 books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) (Torah), and also in the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) (Jesus being the Torah made flesh), and brings freedom. Anything outside of that is man-made law, and brings bondage and oppression.
---Leslie on 5/20/11


A law is a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. Morals deal with right and wrong behavior. So a moral law is a law to constrain wrong behavior in hope of encouraging right behavior.
---John.usa on 5/20/11


Moral law describes a set of behavioral and belief principles for the members of the community. Moral laws deal primarily with the concepts of character, individual and community protection and socialization. Moreover, moral laws introduce the concepts of individual and communal obligations and responsibilities to one another.

Moral law is contrasted with civil law and ceremonial law which tend to be more coercive, external, punitive and procedural.

The effects of the three types of laws may coincide and there are now many different types of laws to accommodate more complex societies.

The moral law, in a very real sense, defines what it means to be human. So, to be moral or immoral reflects the quality of our humanity.
---Allan on 5/20/11


Moral law is not separate from Jesus, but fulfilled in Christ. He will have is living it better than humans can understand it (c:
---Bill_willa6989 on 5/20/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


"How do we define moral law"
Moral law is a principle "founded upon the fundamentally accepted rules of right conduct" or action, as a matter of conscience concerning or relating to human behavior.
"With what is it contrasted ?"
Legalities, as in the "duties or obligations imposed by law" state, local, governmental, or judicial, or enactments, as something "enacted or made law" by the aforementioned.
The main difference between the two is that moral laws tends to have more of a psychological effect and/or consequence rather than a tangible or legalistic one.
---Josef on 5/19/11


It is important to understand, the bible does not differentiate between what many call the moral law, and what many call ceremonial law. There is one Torah (God's instructions) which has 613+/- commands, and they are called everlasting according to scripture.
---Ken_Rank on 5/19/11


Tom2,

So if someone stole food to feed his family he would still be wrong because he should chose the lifestyle of watching his family starve.

Thanks for clearing that up.
---atheist on 5/19/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.