Is food good but amoral?

In a comment in another thread, the view was expressed that food is amoral because of what Scripture teaches in the following passage: 

1 Corinthians 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

It does not seem to me that view is supported by what Scripture says in several places, including the following passage:

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving.

Is food something that is good but amoral or is food something that is good and therefore moral?

3471 reads
Kevin Miller's picture

I suppose one needs to clarify what one means by "moral" in the context of this particular question. I've always understood "moral" to have the idea of "righteous" and "immoral" to have the idea of "sinful." Now in the Old Testament, eating certain foods was sinful. In the New Testament, we find that those prohibitions have been removed, so eating them no longer makes one sinful. Does eating any foods make one righteous? Even though certain foods are no longer sinful, I can't think of any foods that make one righteous, so i don't see how food can be considered moral.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

I suppose one needs to clarify what one means by "moral" in the context of this particular question. I've always understood "moral" to have the idea of "righteous" and "immoral" to have the idea of "sinful." Now in the Old Testament, eating certain foods was sinful. In the New Testament, we find that those prohibitions have been removed, so eating them no longer makes one sinful. Does eating any foods make one righteous? Even though certain foods are no longer sinful, I can't think of any foods that make one righteous, so i don't see how food can be considered moral.

You ask some good questions here that I'd like to give some careful thought to before attempting to answer them. One thing that I can think of right now is that it is not correct to say, "In the Old Testament, eating certain foods was sinful." When God entered into the Noahic Covenant with Noah and his family and all the animals, God gave all animals to man to eat (Gen. 9:3). As far as we know, it was not sinful to eat any foods at that time.

To be accurate, we should say that in Old Testament times, eating certain foods only became sinful for certain people at a later time.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

One thing that I can think of right now is that it is not correct to say, "In the Old Testament, eating certain foods was sinful."

I don't mind you getting nit-picky about my wording. I rather enjoy it, in fact.

Considering that, I stand by how I worded this. I did NOT say, "During the entire time period of the Old Testament, eating certain foods was sinful." That would have been incorrect. I just said "in the Old Testament." I can certainly find verses in the Old Testament in which eating certain foods is sinful, so my wording is accurate.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

I don't mind you getting nit-picky about my wording. I rather enjoy it, in fact.

Considering that, I stand by how I worded this. I did NOT say, "During the entire time period of the Old Testament, eating certain foods was sinful." That would have been incorrect. I just said "in the Old Testament." I can certainly find verses in the Old Testament in which eating certain foods is sinful, so my wording is accurate.

Ok. Having in mind what was true prior to the giving of the Mosaic Covenant is vital to put what we find in the NT in proper perspective.

Ron Bean's picture

I believe that food (especially lobster) is good but is not morally right or wrong.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

RajeshG's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

I believe that food (especially lobster) is good but is not morally right or wrong.

Without providing any Bible to support your position, this amounts to just your opinion, which does not establish anything in a discussion other than documenting what you believe.

Larry's picture

Moderator

This discussion, as the other one, hinges on the meaning of "moral." If you think "moral" means something other than good and acceptable to God, then you can argue that something is amoral. But then you have to explain how everything God created was good but amoral. On the other hand, if moral means good, then the problem is seen not to exist at all. 

It seems that moral means good. Some want to limit it to "righteousness" in some sense, but that seems to require a meaning that cannot be sustained because it puts righteousness in some very limited category. 

Ron Bean's picture

I Corinthians 8:8

 

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Kevin Miller's picture

Larry wrote:

This discussion, as the other one, hinges on the meaning of "moral." If you think "moral" means something other than good and acceptable to God, then you can argue that something is amoral.

What does it mean for something to be "acceptable" to God? You're just giving me another term that needs to be defined in order for me to know what you are trying to say. I used "carpet" as an example in the other thread. Can you define your use of "acceptable" in terms of a carpet? How would a carpet be acceptable or nor acceptable to God? As I said in the other thread, the use of carpet might be unacceptable, but that just transfers the discussion to the human action of using the carpet. I want to know how the carpet itself could be described as acceptable and that would give me some idea as to how you are understanding the meaning of acceptable.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

I suppose one needs to clarify what one means by "moral" in the context of this particular question. I've always understood "moral" to have the idea of "righteous" and "immoral" to have the idea of "sinful." Now in the Old Testament, eating certain foods was sinful. In the New Testament, we find that those prohibitions have been removed, so eating them no longer makes one sinful. Does eating any foods make one righteous? Even though certain foods are no longer sinful, I can't think of any foods that make one righteous, so i don't see how food can be considered moral.

A close examination of the context of 1 Timothy 4:4 shows that food is moral.

First, Paul informs us that the Spirit testifies that apostates who have heeded demons and their demonic doctrines command believers to abstain from foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving:

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

He then explains (“for” at the beginning of 4:4) God’s creating those foods to be received with thanksgiving by asserting that everything that God has created is good and not to be rejected the way those apostates were commanding:

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

In context, therefore, 1 Timothy 4:4 refutes demonic doctrine about abstaining from foods with the truth that those foods created by God are good and should be received as such. Heeding the demonic doctrine and abstaining from those foods on that basis is immoral behaviorconsuming these God-given foods properly (with thanksgiving) is a matter of righteousness in the face of wicked teaching to the contrary.

When Paul teaches, therefore, that everything created by God is good in this passage, he is speaking of the moral goodness of those foods that God has created and the moral goodness of consuming those foods in keeping with the consumption of them for which God has created them.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

When Paul teaches, therefore, that everything created by God is good in this passage, he is speaking of the moral goodness of those foods that God has created and the moral goodness of consuming those foods in keeping with the consumption of them for which God has created them.

So in Romans 14, when Paul encourages believers to abstain for the sake of the weaker brother, is he encouraging people to act immorally, since there is " the moral goodness of consuming those foods" that they need to be aware of?

I only have a few  minutes here this morning, and I'm going to get to something else in your post later, but I want clarification as to whether the morality of these foods translates to an actual command to eat them, in which case the believers who abstain would be breaking such command.

Larry's picture

Moderator

What does it mean for something to be "acceptable" to God?

It means it is righteous, in keeping with his standards for life. Not unrighteous or immoral.

Can you define your use of "acceptable" in terms of a carpet?

It is in keeping with God's standards for life. It is not sinful. The use of it might be, but that is what sin is in most cases--the taking of something good and using it wrongly.

So in Romans 14, when Paul encourages believers to abstain for the sake of the weaker brother, is he encouraging people to act immorally, since there is " the moral goodness of consuming those foods" that they need to be aware of?

Herein lies the major error. You seem to think that if something is moral, it must be done. I don't think so. "Moral" or "good" is not the same thing as commanded. A believer does not to have to everything that is good. He can abstain for one reason or another, including a brother who does not understand that something is good.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

So in Romans 14, when Paul encourages believers to abstain for the sake of the weaker brother, is he encouraging people to act immorally, since there is " the moral goodness of consuming those foods" that they need to be aware of?

I only have a few  minutes here this morning, and I'm going to get to something else in your post later, but I want clarification as to whether the morality of these foods translates to an actual command to eat them, in which case the believers who abstain would be breaking such command.

Bringing in another passage like Romans 14 complicates this discussion further, but of course the answer to your question is no.

For now, you should stick to just taking in what 1 Timothy 4 teaches about this question in comparison to 1 Corinthians 8:8. There is no actual command from God in 1 Tim. 4 to eat anything; Paul's teaching there is to refute the demonic teaching of the apostates who were authoritatively directing people to abstain from good foods that God had created to be eaten with thanksgiving.

Kevin Miller's picture

Larry wrote:

[Kevin wrote]What does it mean for something to be "acceptable" to God?

It means it is righteous, in keeping with his standards for life. Not unrighteous or immoral.

And this is how i defined "moral" earlier. Having to do with "righteous." What are God's righteous standards for life? Isn't God's righteous standard one of holiness and perfection? 

Quote:

[Kevin wrote]Can you define your use of "acceptable" in terms of a carpet?

It is in keeping with God's standards for life. It is not sinful. The use of it might be, but that is what sin is in most cases--the taking of something good and using it wrongly.

So how does a carpet exhibit God's righteous standard of holiness and perfection? God makes us believers accepted in the beloved by imputing Christ's righteousness on us. I'm not sure how a carpet can be accepted like that. How is it even "good"? Has God declared carpet good? What are "God's standards of life" that you are referring to in terms of a carpet? Are you saying that anything at all that is not sin is automatically accepted by God as being part of his standards for life? That seems to be creating an overly expansive category there.

Quote:
Herein lies the major error. You seem to think that if something is moral, it must be done. I don't think so. "Moral" or "good" is not the same thing as commanded.

But if "immoral" refers to sin, or the breaking of God's commands, then why would it's opposite, moral, have at least something to do with commands? Are you claiming that everything in this sin-cursed world is actually moral, or in line with God's standards of life, unless He has actually commanded against it, thus making it immoral?

Larry's picture

Moderator

And this is how i defined "moral" earlier. Having to do with "righteous." What are God's righteous standards for life? Isn't God's righteous standard one of holiness and perfection? 

Yes. How is carpet or food not righteous? It was created by God for us to enjoy. Isn't that moral?

So how does a carpet exhibit God's righteous standard of holiness and perfection?

By providing joy and enjoyment in the world that God has created for us.

Are you saying that anything at all that is not sin is automatically accepted by God as being part of his standards for life?

What's the other alternative? A whole category of things about which God has no view? How can we argue that a God of infinite knowledge doesn't know whether something is good or bad? Again, I think you are confusing human confusion or lack of clarity with God's and creating an unnecessary and unintelligible category.

But if "immoral" refers to sin, or the breaking of God's commands, then why would it's opposite, moral, have at least something to do with commands?

Because of Scripture. God saw all that he had made it was very good. God created these things to be received with joy and thanksgiving. There is no command in that necessarily aside from doing it to the glory of God. 

Are you claiming that everything in this sin-cursed world is actually moral, or in line with God's standards of life, unless He has actually commanded against it, thus making it immoral?

In essense yes, provided you do not view "actually commanded against it" as requiring a verse of Scripture. Again, what's the alternative? Some nebulous and undefined category of "amoral"? I can't see how you avoid arguing that an omniscient God doesn't know whether something is good or bad, pleasing or displeasing.

Is carpet pleasing to God? You would say no, but why? You don't have any reason that I can discern to say no other than not having a verse that talks about it. (Perhaps I have missed something.) 

I don't get the consternation over this. What's the necessity or usefulness of this third category? I don't see it in Scripture. In the passages that talk about these kinds of things, such as 1 Cor 8 or Rom 14, there seems a clear acknowledgement of two categories. The confusion between them is due to weakness. I don't see this third category anywhere.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

But if "immoral" refers to sin, or the breaking of God's commands, then why would it's opposite, moral, have at least something to do with commands? Are you claiming that everything in this sin-cursed world is actually moral, or in line with God's standards of life, unless He has actually commanded against it, thus making it immoral?

Scripture teaches that marriage is a moral institution (Heb. 13:4, etc.) that was created by God (Gen. 2:24). Scripture does not teach that God has commanded all human beings to be married.

Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life and always did what was upright, moral, pleasing to God, acceptable to God, etc. Jesus never married even though marriage is a moral institution created by God.

Anything that God has commanded all people to do is something that is moral that they must do. Anything that God has commanded people not to do is something that no one is to do.

There are many things that are moral (such as marriage) that God has not commanded every single person to do. Marriage is moral but it is not something that is obligatory for every human being just because it is moral.

 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Scripture teaches that marriage is a moral institution (Heb. 13:4, etc.) that was created by God (Gen. 2:24). Scripture does not teach that God has commanded all human beings to be married.

Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life and always did what was upright, moral, pleasing to God, acceptable to God, etc. Jesus never married even though marriage is a moral institution created by God.

Anything that God has commanded all people to do is something that is moral that they must do. Anything that God has commanded people not to do is something that no one is to do.

There are many things that are moral (such as marriage) that God has not commanded every single person to do. Marriage is moral but it is not something that is obligatory for every human being just because it is moral.

I have to acknowledge that's an excellent example to make your point.

Kevin Miller's picture

Larry wrote:

And this is how i defined "moral" earlier. Having to do with "righteous." What are God's righteous standards for life? Isn't God's righteous standard one of holiness and perfection? 

Yes. How is carpet or food not righteous? It was created by God for us to enjoy. Isn't that moral?

So how does a carpet exhibit God's righteous standard of holiness and perfection?

By providing joy and enjoyment in the world that God has created for us.

Are you saying that anything at all that is not sin is automatically accepted by God as being part of his standards for life?

What's the other alternative? A whole category of things about which God has no view? How can we argue that a God of infinite knowledge doesn't know whether something is good or bad? Again, I think you are confusing human confusion or lack of clarity with God's and creating an unnecessary and unintelligible category.

So something is righteous because it was created for our enjoyment? Do you have any verses that illustrate righteousness n this way?

So something exhibits holiness by providing joy and enjoyment in this world? Do you have any verses that illustrate holiness in this way?

Does God have a view of things? God has total and complete knowledge of everything he has created, down to remembering every sparrow and counting the very hairs on our heads. (Luke 17:6-7) It seems to me to be unnecessary and unintelligible to assign a moral value of good or bad to an inanimate object like carpet which can't make any decisions between right and wrong, but can only be used by people in a right or wrong way. God knows absolutely everything about a carpet down to it's number of fibers and it's molecular structure, but I see no Biblical reason for him to be attributing goodness or badness to it. Why would he do that?

It seems to me that you are assigning everything in the world to the category of good unless God has forbidden it, but if you are going to do that, then what about the consequences of the curse of sin. The curse did not just affect man, but the ground itself is cursed. If the ground is cursed, can you really proclaim it good right now? Isn't all of creation in need of the redemption that will happen when Christ returns (Romans 8:21)? If it needs redemption, can you really say it's good?

RajeshG's picture

In this discussion, it is vital to note that Paul affirms present moral goodness for foods that were created by God:

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Strictly speaking, this teaching necessarily applies only to things that God has created. God did not create carpets so we cannot automatically apply 1 Timothy 4:4 (or other similar teaching) directly to carpets in the same way that we can to foods that God did create.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

In this discussion, it is vital to note that Paul affirms present moral goodness for foods that were created by God:

1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Strictly speaking, this teaching necessarily applies only to things that God has created. God did not create carpets so we cannot automatically apply 1 Timothy 4:4 (or other similar teaching) directly to carpets in the same way that we can to foods that God did create.

Are animals morally good in regards to eating them because God originally created them for Adam and Eve to eat? It seems to me that Adam and Eve were only allowed to eat plants, but animals were not allowable to them. The prohibition wasn't removed until Genesis 9:3, so before Noah, it was immoral to eat animals. Would the prohibition thus make all animals immoral from the time of Adam to Noah?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

Are animals morally good in regards to eating them because God originally created them for Adam and Eve to eat? It seems to me that Adam and Eve were only allowed to eat plants, but animals were not allowable to them. The prohibition wasn't removed until Genesis 9:3, so before Noah, it was immoral to eat animals. Would the prohibition thus make all animals immoral from the time of Adam to Noah?

 

Before attempting to answer your questions, let me point out that 1 Timothy 4:3-5 is not teaching specifically about eating animals because they are good, etc. The word "meats" in 1 Tim. 4:3 is a generic word for "foods" and does not specifically refer to eating animals. In 1 Timothy 4:4, when Paul says "every creature of God," the text is not just specifying "every animal"; it denotes everything created by God for food.

No, animals are not "morally good in regards to eating them because God originally created them for Adam and Eve to eat." To my knowledge, the Bible does not say specifically that God created them for Adam and Eve to eat.

Also, there is no explicitly stated prohibition prior to the time of Noah about eating animals.

No, all animals were not immoral prior to the time of Noah. God created them as good and pronounced them good even before he created Adam.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

Also, there is no explicitly stated prohibition prior to the time of Noah about eating animals.

No, all animals were not immoral prior to the time of Noah. God created them as good and pronounced them good even before he created Adam.

The prohibition wasn't stated explicitly. I didn't say it was, But if God gave Adam and Eve plants for food, and then in Genesis 9 he tells them that just as he gave them plants for food, He is now giving them everything, I think we can pretty much assume that He didn't give them permission to eat everything before Noah. Why else would he have to tell them they could now eat everything if they already could before?

So let me ask you a specific question about something we know was explicitly prohibited at a particular time. The Israelites were prohibited from eating pigs during the time of the law. During the time of the law, were pigs immoral or were pigs good since God had created them good and pronounced them good before he created Adam?

Ron Bean's picture

I fail to see how this discussion is sharpening anyone's iron. (I'd call it silly, but I won't lest I hurt anyone's feelings.) I mean it seems to imply that lamb chops are morally good because they come from something God has made but a carpet made from sheep's wool is not. (Scratches head and smiles.)

We've been polled as to whether we thought that Exodus 32 was about music. Good, godly, educated men said they didn't think so and were summarily dismissed.

Are discussions like this the future of SI?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Kevin Miller's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

I fail to see how this discussion is sharpening anyone's iron. (I'd call it silly, but I won't lest I hurt anyone's feelings.) I mean it seems to imply that lamb chops are morally good because they come from something God has made but a carpet made from sheep's wool is not. (Scratches head and smiles.)

We've been polled as to whether we thought that Exodus 32 was about music. Good, godly, educated men said they didn't think so and were summarily dismissed.

Are discussions like this the future of SI?

I fail to see how your comment adds anything of substance to our "silly" discussion. Wink

If all discussions on this forum are to sharpen other people's irons, then can you give me the standards by which I would know someone's iron is going to be sharpened? Wouldn't we all be starting with different sharpnesses, so that what sharpens one's iron might not sharpen another's?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

So let me ask you a specific question about something we know was explicitly prohibited at a particular time. The Israelites were prohibited from eating pigs during the time of the law. During the time of the law, were pigs immoral or were pigs good since God had created them good and pronounced them good before he created Adam?

You seem to be implying that divine prohibitions necessarily imply that the thing or activity prohibited was/is immoral. So far this afternoon, I have compiled six Scriptural instances where that was not true. I should have time to share those passages later this evening.

 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

You seem to be implying that divine prohibitions necessarily imply that the thing or activity prohibited was/is immoral. So far this afternoon, I have compiled six Scriptural instances where that was not true. I should have time to share those passages later this evening.

I'm implying that a prohibited activity should not be done. If God had prohibited an activity, then it is sin do do that activity, isn't it? I'm NOT implying that the objects used in that prohibited activity become immoral themselves. By asking my questions, I'm trying to determine if Larry or you actually assign badness to the inanimate objects that might be used in a prohibited activity. My question doesn't imply that I myself believe that to be true. Larry has implied that everything, absolutely everything, is either good or bad in God's eyes, and I want to make the point that it is actually our activities that might be good or bad, moral or immoral, and NOT the objects themselves. I'll be interested to read your passages to see if they apply to activities or to objects that might be used in an activity. If your passages are stating that the objects are NOT immoral, then that would go right along with my point. If your passages are stating that a prohibited activity is not immoral/sinful to do, then I'd be really, really interested to study out those passages.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

I'm implying that a prohibited activity should not be done. If God had prohibited an activity, then it is sin do do that activity, isn't it? I'm NOT implying that the objects used in that prohibited activity become immoral themselves. By asking my questions, I'm trying to determine if Larry or you actually assign badness to the inanimate objects that might be used in a prohibited activity. My question doesn't imply that I myself believe that to be true. Larry has implied that everything, absolutely everything, is either good or bad in God's eyes, and I want to make the point that it is actually our activities that might be good or bad, moral or immoral, and NOT the objects themselves. I'll be interested to read your passages to see if they apply to activities or to objects that might be used in an activity. If your passages are stating that the objects are NOT immoral, then that would go right along with my point. If your passages are stating that a prohibited activity is not immoral/sinful to do, then I'd be really, really interested to study out those passages.


 

Of course, doing a prohibited activity is sinful regardless of whether any object(s) involved in doing the activity are either good or bad.

Here are six passages to consider:

1. Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

God made the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree was moral because God made it. God's prohibition against eating from it (Gen. 2:17) was not because the tree or the fruit itself was bad/evil/immoral.

2. God's prohibiting Moses from going into the promised land (Deut. 32:52). Neither the promised land nor entering it was immoral. 

3. God's prohibiting David from building the Temple (1 Chron. 28:3). Neither the Temple itself nor building it was immoral.

4. God repeatedly prohibited Jeremiah from praying for the good of the people (Jer. 7:16, 11:14, 14:11). Praying for the good of the people was not an immoral activity.

5. The Spirit's prohibiting Paul and others from going to Asia (Acts 16:6) and to Bithynia (Acts 16:7) to preach the gospel. Preaching the gospel was not an immoral activity.

6. A voice from heaven prohibited John from writing down what the seven thunders had spoken (Rev. 10:4). We do not have any basis for thinking that what they said was immoral or that his writing what they said would have been immoral. 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:
 

2. God's prohibiting Moses from going into the promised land (Deut. 32:52). Neither the promised land nor entering it was immoral. 

Let me just cover this one, and you can see where my mind is at and whether you disagree with my conclusion. God prohibited Moses, so Moses had to make a moral decision, a decision between right and wrong.  Entering the land for all the rest of the Israelites was not immoral, but for Moses, entering the land would have been immoral, since he would have been disobeying. Even if Moses had disobeyed, that still would not have made the land itself immoral. The idea of morality/immorality had to do with the decision that Moses made, not with some characteristic of the land itself. The rest of the Israelites were commanded to enter the land, so for them, the action of entering was the moral thing to do. The land was the correct place for them to be, but "moral" is a description of their decision, not a characteristic of the land itself. I do recognize I'm drawing a fine line when talking about the land not being moral, since it comes far, far closer to being moral, even with my definitions, than something like carpet would. After all, the land was the holy land. It was set apart for God's purposes. So "holy" can be a characteristic of an object, but semantically speaking, I see "moral" a referring more to a decision than to an object that is involved in that decision.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

The land was the correct place for them to be, but "moral" is a description of their decision, not a characteristic of the land itself. I do recognize I'm drawing a fine line when talking about the land not being moral, since it comes far, far closer to being moral, even with my definitions, than something like carpet would. After all, the land was the holy land. It was set apart for God's purposes. So "holy" can be a characteristic of an object, but semantically speaking, I see "moral" a referring more to a decision than to an object that is involved in that decision.

The Promised Land was not just "holy" in the sense that it was set apart for God's purposes--God also said that it was a good land (Ex. 3:8; Deut. 1:25; Deut. 8:7).

More broadly, I do not find a Bible basis for saying that something that God declares to be good is also "neutral" or "amoral." When God finished creating everything, He pronounced it all very good:

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

How you can account for this statement and many others (such as 1 Tim. 4:4) that say that things that God has made are good and still hold that they are neutral or amoral is a mystery to me. What is the biblical basis for doing so?
 

Pages