micatala wrote:I would submit that the Biblical view is that there is an eternal moral code, but that humans will never be able to completely understand or fulfill it. The 'changes' in moral codes, Biblical or not, that have occurred over history might be attributable to our lack of understanding and ability to follow such codes. Certainly Jesus allows as much in his discussion of marriage and divorce in the OT versus what 'should' happen. In a sense, Jesus is expecting us to evolve morally.
Or in a sense, Jesus is simply saying we won't measure up to the standard of the Law. He never says the law changes, or becomes something more in keeping with our lame actions. If anything, He shows us that the true standard of the Law is yet higher than what we esteemed it before His ministry. E.G. You have heard it said that he who commits adultery... I say that He who lusts after a woman in his heart... has committed adultery already. In other words, you thought that men broke the law and pointed fingers, but all you with your fingers pointed continue to trespass against it. Related to divorce, does the new testament say that because you were unable to remain married, the Law will change about divorce? Not in the least- "Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses allowed divorce". Hardness of heart is a euphemism for wickedness (after all it was used of the pharaoh in Egypt). So then, divorce shows our weakness and wickedness. I know many who have divorced but cannot simply point a finger at them either. What sins have I committed which they have not? Perhaps many. The point though is that marriage is still intended by moral law to be until death. Note that according to the Law itself, a man or a woman is no longer bound to their spouse if the same has predeceased them. They are free then to re-marry. Because of the law. It remains the same today.
Further evidence of this is that the Scriptures tell us that if we divorce for any other reason than adultery, we are bound to be without a new spouse (re-marrying) until... when? Death. Why? Because under the law you remain married to the first until death or adultery. Marrying a second is technically adultery. Now I know some who have remarried for different reasons, and my point is not to point fingers at them either. It is just to emphasize that the rules haven't changed. We continue to be human. That's all.
harvey1 wrote:Yes, there's major differences (e.g., stoning an adultress), but given 3 millenia it just shows how stable those moral codes were after 100-300K years of modern humans living on the planet.
You are confusing punishment for moral responsibility. Stoning was a punishment for certain things which was allowed under an Israelite theocracy, meaning, not under an American democracy. In such a theocracy, the law would be applied very rigidly- not liberally. Looking at the Sanhedren as an example of a body which carried out such verdicts, some of you might be surprised to learn that stoning for adultery or the like was incredibly rare. This is because, it was exceptional to fulfill the requirements of the law for "catching" someone, among other things. The Law was written with thorough checks and balances in place. One of the reasons I am not in support of the current death penalty in the US--and some believers disagree--but having studied it somewhat, I don't believe we are able to apply it Lawfully or with those same checks and balances in place. We do not follow the Law at all for what it requires to do such a thing. Besides not having a theocracy.
I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
Unto the third and fourth generation of
them that hate me... This is not a death sentence for them who love God but are born to hateful parents. If it were so the verse would imply infinite regression, since the third or fourth generation would likewise auto-hate. What then of
their children? And their children? What it says is that those who are unrepentant of their parents' crimes or attitudes, will suffer for their parents' crimes as well as their own. We do see this in real life. It may not seem fair, but it's certainly more fair than saying, "regardless of whether the children are horrified at their parents' choices". Time and time again, if the Scriptures are read in context and with understanding of implication, they show incredible graces.
As for "Is there a universal moral code", everyone here seems to be making things way too complicated. The most attainable evidence of a moral code is this:
People believe that there is no moral code and that they or their community chooses which code to abide by until the same individuals are "wronged" by another person. I believe it was also CS Lewis who asked his students,
not "Where are different moralities applied?" (as in the case with headhunters for whom murder is a part of their life practice), but "Where in this world are there people who feel betrayed or wronged by
different offenses?" In other words, where in the world will you find someone who enjoys being dinner for his captor. Or where will a man who, believing it is okay to steal from others, not be offended by someone stealing from him? Where will one who rapes believe it is okay for him to be raped? By definition such an act is against one's will. This is the true test. We are all okay to devise our own make-believe morality, but in the end, we cannot escape that we all (and not just recently, but for all time) have been hurt by the same basic things. A moral code is for our own protection and is pedagogical in nature. Any example of morality changing over time will be superficial in nature.
