Is food good but amoral?

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]

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.”

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.

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

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.

I Corinthians 8:8

[Larry]

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.

[RajeshG]

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.

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.

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.

[Larry]

[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?

[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.

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.

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]

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.

[Larry]

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]

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.

[RajeshG]

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.

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?

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?

[Ron Bean]

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?

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]

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.

[RajeshG]

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

This thread is kind of frustrating to read, because it’s hobbled at the outset:

is food something that is good and therefore moral

The phrase “good and therefore moral” leaps over volumes of ethical conversation about how to relate the “good” (what is beneficial, worth pursuing, practically wise) and the “right” (what someone ought to do or not do). A big question in ethics (for secular ethicists especially) is indeed whether we can derive a concept of the right from our observations about the good. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the OP seems to take it for granted that calling something good is tantamount to calling it moral / right. So does this statement: “How can you account for [biblical statements]…that say that things that God has made are good and still hold that they are neutral or amoral.”

Here’s why this fuzziness is especially frustrating. First, I’ve studied primarily apologetics, and some ethics. As a Christian “looking in” on secular ethical discussions, I am struck by how much secularists still want to speak in the register of “ought” even though they have no way to account for the “ought.” In an evolutionist’s universe, “ought” is a very mysterious phenomenon. Just because something is “good,” doesn’t mean I ought to pursue it. The fact that unbelievers continue to use the language of “ought” just shows, per Romans 1, that they really do know God’s existence, power, and righteous decree, though they refuse to acknowledge and believe what they actually know.

Second, in common ethical problems, like a young lady considering abortion, secular ethicists want to weight the various pre-moral “goods” to come up with some kind of decision. A pro-abortion argument would be all the “goods” that could be had if the young lady could stay in school, finish her education, not hindered by a crying baby. In any ethical crisis, the person is overwhelmed by considerations of what’s “good” for me. The Christian answer to this comes from biblical theology as early as Genesis 1-3, that God is the one who can tell us what is “good” for us. For the Christian, what is “right” envelops how we interpret and respond to what we perceive to be “good.” A creature will pursue the “good” either in obedience (right) or disobedience (wrong) to the Creator.

@Rajesh, I do think we’re on the same page re: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That fruit was in some respects “good” (Gen. 3:6), but because of the prohibition, eating from it would always be wrong.

@Rajesh, I don’t understand why you’re trying to establish the idea that “food is moral” from the fact that God calls food good. Why not cut to the chase? I’m a covenant creature of God. Everything I do has a moral dimension, my response to food included.

Another distinction that could help a discussion like this—especially the business about carpeting—would be some kind of nature / culture distinction (whether you like Niebuhr or not, Christ and Culture works through that), or a structure / direction distinction (see Albert Wolters, Creation Regained). In any phenomenon in the world, I need to separate the “structure” (what reflects God’s original creation) from the “direction” (what man has done with it, where man is taking it). I suppose that you can argue that “food” is closer to nature / structure, although what is grown, and how it is grown, and how it is processed, and what we choose to cook, is already picking up an aspect of “direction.” And then “carpet” is more of a human artifact, part of culture.

The phrase “good and therefore moral” leaps over volumes of ethical conversation about how to relate the “good” (what is beneficial, worth pursuing, practically wise) and the “right” (what someone ought to do or not do).

I think the problem is that attempting to separate good from right requires separating good from God. How can we define good apart from God and his righteousness? I am not convinced there is a way that doesn’t involve some denial of God’s supremacy of character and standards or some sort of special pleading. At first glance, I don’t find the distinction between “good” and “right” helpful, at least for this conversation. I think we would all agree that there is no standard for “good” other than God, so I am not sure how we get a distinction between good and right. It seems to me that something is good for the same reason it is right—because God says it is, and that flows from his character.

If you can see how the fruit of that tree was “good,” why you do have a problem with seeing that everything else that God made is good?

@Rajesh. Everything God made is good (Gen. 1:31; Psalm 104; James 1:17).

@Larry: whatever God does is both good and right. I agree that within the character of God, it’s hard to separate the good from the right. Also, a huge part of Christian morality is understanding that our highest “good” is in obeying God.

What I’m saying is that calling something “good” doesn’t get me very far when it comes to ethical decision-making. There are some implications, e.g., if God calls it good, we ought not to contradict God and call it bad or imply it’s bad (1 Timothy 4). But that doesn’t tell me much about when / how / what I should eat, and when / how / what I should refrain from eating. There are moral questions that concern food; but the questions are moral questions because they involve moral agents responsible to God for how they relate to God, to each other, and to the world around them.

What I’m saying is that it’s possible to say (and I do :) ),”Food as such is amoral, but a moral agent can never interact with food in an amoral way.”

Arguing to establish the “morality” of food based on its goodness confuses the categories, and it’s an unnecessary argument if the point that really needs to be me made is that it matters to God what I do about food. Yes, it matters to God what I do about food.

Kevin and Michael,

Things are righteous because they align with God’s character, and creation is part of that. You seem to want to have a category of good that is separate from God’s character of righteousness. I don’t know how we would define anything as good (or bad) apart from God. And I still don’t know where this ambiguous category of ambivalence towards something comes from. If we are to “do all to the glory of God,” that seems to attach a moral significance to everything.

It’s not that God attributes goodness or badness to carpet or anything else. It is that something reflects or aligns with his character. You still seem (even in your last comment to Rajesh) to be operating on this idea of “inherent” morality. I don’t know how that is useful. To me it seems we over complicate this by chasing this third category.

Michael, you raise the category of “ought,” and I think that is perhaps a valid point to press on. If you believe that we “ought” to do everything that is good, then I think you could make your way towards your position (or at least what I think your position is). But if you take the position that we do not have to do everything that is good, then we have an entirely different scenario, do we not?

When you question whether animals were immoral, isn’t the obvious answer no? They were part of what God declared to be good and very good. How would that be immoral? Or even neutral?

Why not just say, “Do all to the glory of God” with the understanding that that can be done, whether laying carpet, enjoying carpet, vacuuming carpet, removing carpet, or whatever.

I suppose in the end, I think categories of “moral” and “amoral” and “immoral” probably confuse things more than they help. Perhaps I am immoral for suggesting that.

[Larry]

Kevin and Michael,

Things are righteous because they align with God’s character, and creation is part of that. You seem to want to have a category of good that is separate from God’s character of righteousness. I don’t know how we would define anything as good (or bad) apart from God. And I still don’t know where this ambiguous category of ambivalence towards something comes from. If we are to “do all to the glory of God,” that seems to attach a moral significance to everything.

It’s not that God attributes goodness or badness to carpet or anything else. It is that something reflects or aligns with his character. You still seem (even in your last comment to Rajesh) to be operating on this idea of “inherent” morality. I don’t know how that is useful. To me it seems we over complicate this by chasing this third category.

Even your own statements, Larry, have been a bit confusing to me. Earlier in the thread, you wrote, “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? In the same post, you wrote, ” 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.” Those statements made it seem like you were talking about an inherent quality that God would assuredly have a view of. Now, you’re telling me “It’s not that God attributes goodness or badness to carpet or anything else.” That’s just what I’ve been saying, but you’ve gotten after me for supposedly inventing some third category.

I agree with your statement when you say “I suppose in the end, I think categories of “moral” and “amoral” and “immoral” probably confuse things more than they help.” The confusion lies in the semantic framework that each of us places on the particular words. I simply see “moral” as a bit more specific than you do. If I were to make a claim that food is either worldly or spiritual, you would probably start asking questions about what I semantically mean by “worldly” and “spiritual.” I might say that spiritual things are in line with God’s character and creation is a part of that, but that really wouldn’t be a common way of using the term “spiritual.” It has a more specific meaning.

Those statements made it seem like you were talking about an inherent quality that God would assuredly have a view of. Now, you’re telling me “It’s not that God attributes goodness or badness to carpet or anything else.” That’s just what I’ve been saying, but you’ve gotten after me for supposedly inventing some third category.

Perhaps the confusion is in this: I don’t think God attributes goodness or badness to things. It is good or bad based on how it relates to God’s character. I don’t think that is what you are saying. You seem to be saying there is something in itself or nothing in itself, that there are a bunch of neutral things out there. I think everything is either okay with God (good or righteous) or not okay with God (sin or evil). I can’t conceive of something that doesn’t fit in one of those categories. Sure, it depends on use. You can use good things for bad purposes. But the thing is acceptable to God. It is good.