Do God's Morals Change?

[POI]

The Bible states:

"A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."

Is this law still binding for anyone today? If so, are such laws ever being carried out?

Or, is it no longer binding for anyone? And if not, why is it no longer binding? And furthermore, if it is no longer binding for anyone, who's to say God's law will not change again someday?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #58]

Also one more example of how we are no longer under the law. From Romans chapter 7 starting at verse 1.

Or do you not know, brothers[a]—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #53]

I don't understand. If there is objective morality defined by God, why have different sets of laws for different people? If it is because some are not based on morality, then what is their purpose?

Yes, I hold with the common Christian tradition that there is objective morality. However, this morality is not found in a list of do’s and don’ts. Some actions are fundamentally wrong in every setting. Murder, for instance. Or bearing false testimony. These are inherently evil. But on the whole love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control do not look the same in every culture or in every circumstance. So Christians have long held that the OT included civil laws which, though they could point to an underlying truth about the nature of God and morality, were never intended to be enforced in every culture throughout history.

Examples seem abundant. A culture with modern farming and food preservation techniques might show compassion by providing processed (as in flour instead of grain) food to the hungry, while a culture where the norm would be family farms might show compassion by providing the hungry unprocessed (grain instead of flour) ingredients for the family to work with as they wished.

Or again, indecent exposure might look one way in Victorian England and a completely different way in a third century pacific island. The morality would be the same, but how that morality would work itself out in practice would be different.

[POI]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #53]

I don't understand. If there is objective morality defined by God, why have different sets of laws for different people? If it is because some are not based on morality, then what is their purpose?

Yes, I hold with the common Christian tradition that there is objective morality. However, this morality is not found in a list of do’s and don’ts. Some actions are fundamentally wrong in every setting. Murder, for instance. Or bearing false testimony. These are inherently evil. But on the whole love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control do not look the same in every culture or in every circumstance. So Christians have long held that the OT included civil laws which, though they could point to an underlying truth about the nature of God and morality, were never intended to be enforced in every culture throughout history.

Examples seem abundant. A culture with modern farming and food preservation techniques might show compassion by providing processed (as in flour instead of grain) food to the hungry, while a culture where the norm would be family farms might show compassion by providing the hungry unprocessed (grain instead of flour) ingredients for the family to work with as they wished.

Or again, indecent exposure might look one way in Victorian England and a completely different way in a third century pacific island. The morality would be the same, but how that morality would work itself out in practice would be different.

Got it... Please explain, in what context, the following law was permissible --> (from post #1)?

"A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."

[bjs1]

This was a civil law designed specifically for Israel, the only Theocracy in history.

Okay? Does this theocracy still abide by this law? If not, why not?

You would have to ask those who religious history included a theocracy. There has never been a genuine theocracy in Christian history.

And why would god EVER order the burning of people? Does he like the torture to start before they are sent to hell?

It does strike me as overly harsh; perhaps even terrible.

But I am reminded of a line from Douglas Adams. “If I had a nickel for every time one part of the universe looked at another part of the universe and said, “That’s terrible,” then I would be standing here like a lime looking for some gin. But I don’t. So I am. Do you have any gin?”


Basically, we are not in that culture. Burning someone in our post-enlightenment, individualistic modern western culture would be wrong. We do not have standing to declare what is too harsh a sentence in for a pre-enlightenment, collectivist middle-eastern culture in antiquity. The underlying morality of sexual ethics does not change. How that is worked out in practice does change.

God’s laws absolutely will change again. Pretty much from the beginning Christians have held that Christ will return and, as with his first coming, that will fundamentally change our reality, or relationship to the law, and the way God’s unchanging morality is played out in our new lives.

So do god's morals change, or ours?

Again, neither. Morality does not change. The way morality works itself out in different culture with different values or different circumstances does change. The underlying morality of God does not change and, I believe, the underlying human morality should not change.

[bjs1]

Got it... Please explain, in what context, the following law was permissible --> (from post #1)?

"A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."

The context would be a pre-enlightenment, collectivist middle-eastern theocracy in antiquity in which people have voluntarily agreed to a specific legal framework.

The underlying sexual morality does not change. The legal enforcement does.

[POI]

Got it... Please explain, in what context, the following law was permissible --> (from post #1)?

"A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death."

The context would be a pre-enlightenment, collectivist middle-eastern theocracy in antiquity in which people have voluntarily agreed to a specific legal framework.

The underlying sexual morality does not change. The legal enforcement does.

Wait a minute....? Is this God's wishes, or merely human wishes? Meaning, did God orchestrate this particular punishment for such said crime, or not?

[POI]

This was a civil law designed specifically for Israel, the only Theocracy in history.

Okay? Does this theocracy still abide by this law? If not, why not?

You would have to ask those who religious history included a theocracy. There has never been a genuine theocracy in Christian history.

And why would god EVER order the burning of people? Does he like the torture to start before they are sent to hell?

It does strike me as overly harsh; perhaps even terrible.

But I am reminded of a line from Douglas Adams. “If I had a nickel for every time one part of the universe looked at another part of the universe and said, “That’s terrible,” then I would be standing here like a lime looking for some gin. But I don’t. So I am. Do you have any gin?”


Basically, we are not in that culture. Burning someone in our post-enlightenment, individualistic modern western culture would be wrong. We not standing to declare what is too harsh a sentence in for a pre-enlightenment, collectivist middle-eastern culture in antiquity. The underlying morality of sexual ethics does not change. How that is worked in practice does.

God’s laws absolutely will change again. Pretty much from the beginning Christians have held that Christ will return and, as with his first coming, that will fundamentally change our reality, or relationship to the law, and the way God’s unchanging morality is played out in our new lives.

So do god's morals change, or ours?

Again, neither. Morality does not change. The way morality works itself out in different culture with different values or different circumstances does change. The underlying morality of God does not change and, I believe, the underlying human morality should not change.

This reads like you are arguing that the actual punishment is situational? And in these times of specific antiquity, the proper punishment was to burn her to death? But if it's situational, was this always the proper punishment in these times? The reason I ask is because the law looks to be very one dimensional. Meaning, there were no caveats given for their punishment. If she is caught, she is to be burned alive. Such laws could not arguably change until after 'Jesus'.

So when one reads this Verse, was the punishment commanded by the consensus of humans, or god himself?

[JoeyKnothead]

Do God's morals change?

With each new revelation of Republican hypocrisy.

[bjs1]

This reads like you are arguing that the actual punishment is situational? And in these times of specific antiquity, the proper punishment was to burn her to death? But if it's situational, was this always the proper punishment in these times? The reason I ask is because the law looks to be very one dimensional. Meaning, there were no caveats given for their punishment. If she is caught, she is to be burned alive. Such laws could not arguably change until after 'Jesus'.

So when one reads this Verse, was the punishment commanded by the consensus of humans, or god himself?

Yes, the punishment is situation. All legal punishments should be situational to some degree.

One of the challenges seems to be that you are reading the law outside of its context – both the specific written context and the overarching cultural context. This is understandable since we have very little information about the details of the legal system at that time. For instance, we have no record of this punishment ever being enforced, which suggests that there were caveats. But it is hard to say with any kind of certainty.

Again, for a Christian, the underlying ethical command is what matters, not the legal punishment. If your focus is on the legal punishment then you are not really engaging with Christianity at all. You will have to speak with an orthodox Jew on that topic. I am not qualified to speak for them.

[POI]

Yes, the punishment is situation. All legal punishments should be situational to some degree.

What 'situation' demands that a priest's daughter be burned to death?

One of the challenges seems to be that you are reading the law outside of its context

Oooh, do tell

– both the specific written context and the overarching cultural context. This is understandable since we have very little information about the details of the legal system at that time. For instance, we have no record of this punishment ever being enforced, which suggests that there were caveats. But it is hard to say with any kind of certainty.

This response looks like quite the reach.... As I stated prior, when the command was issued, no caveats were offered. This means that the law maker suggests that THIS is the proper punishment --> to burn her to death. Whether or not anyone actually followed this pronouncement is another topic. One in which would suggest, that if no one was carrying out this punishment, means they too likely thought it was overkill. And the fact that you are making such an excuse here, looks to be a tell-tale sign that you too find this punishment declaration overkill?

Again, for a Christian, the underlying ethical command is what matters, not the legal punishment.

In other words, gloss right over that part; and shrug your shoulders

If your focus is on the legal punishment then you are not really engaging with Christianity at all.

Yes I am. You don't get the NT without the OT. I know it is quite inconvenient for Christians, but they are forced to leave the OT in the entire equation (i.e.) as a later deemed NT writer wrote (i.e.)

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

You will have to speak with an orthodox Jew on that topic. I am not qualified to speak for them.

I do not have to speak to Orthodox Jews. If you are a Christian, I can ask you directly.

Further, you seemed to ignore my bottom question. Allow me to repeat:

Was the punishment commanded by the consensus of humans, or, god himself?