• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If God Was Absolutely Moral, . .

Skwim

Veteran Member
because morality was absolute, and if the nature of "tight" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?



And please, no, "Well, he can do whatever he wants" kinds of answers.

Thanks.

.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
because morality was absolute, and if the nature of "tight" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?



And please, no, "Well, he can do whatever he wants" kinds of answers.

Thanks.

.

For example?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?

Children get more rules from their parents. When they grow up, the rules about bedtime, for example, don't apply any longer. We are albeit slowly maturing and turning into adults.
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?
The ceremonial and judicial laws are distinct from the moral law. The moral law is eternal and thus still biding, the ceremonial and judicial laws that governed Old Covenant became defunct at the institution of the New Covenant by Christ.

According to Saint Aquinas.

I answer that, The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural law, and added certain precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those precepts of the natural law contained in the Old Law, all were bound to observe the Old Law; not because they belonged to the Old Law, but because they belonged to the natural law. But as to those precepts which were added by the Old Law, they were not binding on save the Jewish people alone.

The reason of this is because the Old Law, as stated above (Article 4), was given to the Jewish people, that it might receive a prerogative of holiness, in reverence for Christ Who was to be born of that people. Now whatever laws are enacted for the special sanctification of certain ones, are binding on them alone: thus clerics who are set aside for the service of God are bound to certain obligations to which the laity are not bound; likewise religious are bound by their profession to certain works of perfection, to which people living in the world are not bound. In like manner this people was bound to certain special observances, to which other peoples were not bound. Wherefore it is written (Deuteronomy 18:13): "Thou shalt be perfect and without spot before the Lord thy God": and for this reason they used a kind of form of profession, as appears from Deuteronomy 26:3: "I profess this day before the Lord thy God," etc.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2098.htm#article5
 

InChrist

Free4ever
because morality was absolute, and if the nature of "tight" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?



And please, no, "Well, he can do whatever he wants" kinds of answers.

Thanks.

.
God does not change, the sin of the OT is still sin in the NT and the law is still in place. It's just that the detailed laws in the OT were given to reveal to humanity the impossibility of reaching God's standard of perfect holiness by human effort. Only God can meet the standards of perfect holiness, which Jesus Christ did, being God in the flesh, as revealed in the NT. The message of the NT is that one does not have to live under the weight of the law because Christ met all the requirements and has victory over sin. Anyone who trusts Him for salvation and deliverance from sin is now free to live a new life with the desire to love and serve God, instead of desiring sin.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
because morality was absolute, and if the nature of "tight" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?



And please, no, "Well, he can do whatever he wants" kinds of answers.

Thanks.

.
The moral guidance offered by the sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions is evidence of these facts:

(1) Since the older the text, the worse the moral guidance, it's evidence that we humans have been making moral progress over the centuries.

(2) Since these texts, considered sacred, have been edited throughout the ages to take out the worst of their moral guidance, it's obvious that the men who wrote them were not divinely-inspired by an all-knowing Creator. Moreover, it's evidence that, if such a Creator exists, the men who wrote those texts knew no more about it than you or me.

(3) Since the Abrahamic texts were written by men who condoned slavery and saw women as property, and since we humans have abolished legal slavery and the movement to treat women as equal to men is well underway, it's evidence that moral advances driven by the human conscience cannot be stopped by the sacred texts of religion which oppose them.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
because morality was absolute, and if the nature of "tight" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?



And please, no, "Well, he can do whatever he wants" kinds of answers.

Thanks.

.
If God is absolutely moral he would provide his family and fellow gods with plenty of animal and human sacrifices. A God has to eat!
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
For example?
For example what?


The moral guidance offered by the sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions is evidence of these facts:

(1) Since the older the text, the worse the moral guidance, it's evidence that we humans have been making moral progress over the centuries.

(2) Since these texts, considered sacred, have been edited throughout the ages to take out the worst of their moral guidance, it's obvious that the men who wrote them were not divinely-inspired by an all-knowing Creator. Moreover, it's evidence that, if such a Creator exists, the men who wrote those texts knew no more about it than you or me.

(3) Since the Abrahamic texts were written by men who condoned slavery and saw women as property, and since we humans have abolished legal slavery and the movement to treat women as equal to men is well underway, it's evidence that moral advances driven by the human conscience cannot be stopped by the sacred texts of religion which oppose them.
I'm sorry you miss the point of the OP. Perhaps if you read it again.


Children get more rules from their parents. When they grow up, the rules about bedtime, for example, don't apply any longer. We are albeit slowly maturing and turning into adults.
So what?

.
The ceremonial and judicial laws are distinct from the moral law. The moral law is eternal and thus still biding, the ceremonial and judicial laws that governed Old Covenant became defunct at the institution of the New Covenant by Christ.
Not talking about judicial law. Perhaps if you read it again.


.
God does not change, the sin of the OT is still sin in the NT and the law is still in place. It's just that the detailed laws in the OT were given to reveal to humanity the impossibility of reaching God's standard of perfect holiness by human effort. Only God can meet the standards of perfect holiness, which Jesus Christ did, being God in the flesh, as revealed in the NT. The message of the NT is that one does not have to live under the weight of the law because Christ met all the requirements and has victory over sin. Anyone who trusts Him for salvation and deliverance from sin is now free to live a new life with the desire to love and serve God, instead of desiring sin.
So, whereas those living under the Old Testament law were punished for their transgressions of it. Those living under new testament law and trust in Jesus for their salvation are given a bye. However, those who don't find reason to trust in Jesus or have never heard of this escape clause are no less destined for hell than those living under Old Testament law. And you find this justified and moral?

.
The moral guidance offered by the sacred texts of the Abrahamic religions is evidence of these facts:

(1) Since the older the text, the worse the moral guidance, it's evidence that we humans have been making moral progress over the centuries.

(2) Since these texts, considered sacred, have been edited throughout the ages to take out the worst of their moral guidance, it's obvious that the men who wrote them were not divinely-inspired by an all-knowing Creator. Moreover, it's evidence that, if such a Creator exists, the men who wrote those texts knew no more about it than you or me.

(3) Since the Abrahamic texts were written by men who condoned slavery and saw women as property, and since we humans have abolished legal slavery and the movement to treat women as equal to men is well underway, it's evidence that moral advances driven by the human conscience cannot be stopped by the sacred texts of religion which oppose them.
Again, I'm sorry you miss the point of the OP. Perhaps if you read it again.


.
If God is absolutely moral he would provide his family and fellow gods with plenty of animal and human sacrifices. A God has to eat!
Finally, a reasonable response. ;)


.
Jesus was more concerned with the 'heart', spirit of the Torah not the letter. Culture continues to evolve.
So what?


.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
For example what?



I'm sorry you miss the point of the OP. Perhaps if you read it again.



So what?

.

Not talking about judicial law. Perhaps if you read it again.


.

So, whereas those living under the Old Testament law were punished for their transgressions of it. Those living under new testament law and trust in Jesus for their salvation are given a bye. However, those who don't find reason to trust in Jesus or have never heard of this escape clause are no less destined for hell than those living under Old Testament law. And you find this justified and moral?

.

Again, I'm sorry you miss the point of the OP. Perhaps if you read it again.


.

Finally, a reasonable response. ;)


.

So what?


.

Which are sins exist in the OT that are not in the NT?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Which are sins exist in the OT that are not in the NT?
Well, the OP isn't concerned with what god deemed sins, but with morality; however, since you asked;

Leviticus 6:2
You are guilty of sin against the Lord when you do any of these things:
when you lie about what happened to something you were taking care of for someone else;
when you lie about a deposit[a] you received;
when you steal something;
when you cheat someone;
3 when you find something that was lost and lie about having it;
when you fail to keep a promise;
or when you do any other bad things like these.


Leviticus 19:5-8

5 “When you offer a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the Lord, you must offer it in the right way so that you will be accepted. 6 You may eat it the same day you offer it and on the next day. But if any of that sacrifice is left on the third day, you must burn it in the fire. 7 You must not eat any of that sacrifice on the third day. It will be unclean, and it will not be accepted. 8 You will be guilty of sin if you do that because you did not respect the holy things that belong to the Lord. If you do that, you will be separated from your people.


Leviticus 20:18

18 “If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly time of bleeding, both the woman and the man must be separated from their people. They sinned because they exposed her source of blood.

.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
.

So, whereas those living under the Old Testament law were punished for their transgressions of it. Those living under new testament law and trust in Jesus for their salvation are given a bye. However, those who don't find reason to trust in Jesus or have never heard of this escape clause are no less destined for hell than those living under Old Testament law. And you find this justified and moral?

.


.
No one kept the OT laws perfectly all fell short, but God saw one's heart and faith in desiring to keep them. In the NT and beyond no one follows, nor submits their life to Christ every moment, all fall short, but God sees the heart and one's desire and faith in desiring to live for Christ. God sees the heart and motives of each person, those who have never heard the gospel and/or those who reject. I believe He is constantly giving opportunities and providing circumstances for each person everyday, whoever or wherever they are to see, know, and receive His gift of eternal life, if they are seeking freedom from the destructiveness of sin.

It is more than moral and just. It is mercy and love.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Well, the OP isn't concerned with what god deemed sins, but with morality; however, since you asked;

Leviticus 6:2
You are guilty of sin against the Lord when you do any of these things:
when you lie about what happened to something you were taking care of for someone else;
when you lie about a deposit[a] you received;
when you steal something;
when you cheat someone;
3 when you find something that was lost and lie about having it;
when you fail to keep a promise;
or when you do any other bad things like these.


Leviticus 19:5-8

5 “When you offer a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the Lord, you must offer it in the right way so that you will be accepted. 6 You may eat it the same day you offer it and on the next day. But if any of that sacrifice is left on the third day, you must burn it in the fire. 7 You must not eat any of that sacrifice on the third day. It will be unclean, and it will not be accepted. 8 You will be guilty of sin if you do that because you did not respect the holy things that belong to the Lord. If you do that, you will be separated from your people.


Leviticus 20:18

18 “If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly time of bleeding, both the woman and the man must be separated from their people. They sinned because they exposed her source of blood.

.

You have to sum it up. Its a guessing game how you are connecting these verses; so, it would be easier to sum up your point so I know how these versus are supposed to relate to your OP.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
You have to sum it up. Its a guessing game how you are connecting these verses; so, it would be easier to sum up your point so I know how these versus are supposed to relate to your OP.
I'm sorry, but this isn't the subject of my OP. You should make one of your own if it really interests you.

.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I'm sorry, but this isn't the subject of my OP. You should make one of your own if it really interests you.

.

Why quote the verses if they arent the subject of your OP?

Asking for clarification is key component to a debate and conversation.

Summarize your verses and relate them to the OP.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Why quote the verses if they arent the subject of your OP?
Because YOU asked, and I'm a nice guy so I threw you a few. I really thought this fact was quite obvious and I wouldn't have to demonstrate it.

Asking for clarification is key component to a debate and conversation.
Not when it's immaterial. I'm trying to stay track here.

As I've shown, there are sins in the OT that are no longer considered sins in the NT. If you can't accept this then there's no reason to continue our conversation. But, if you do accept the situation, then all I ask is:

If god was absolutely moral because morality was absolute, and if the nature of "right" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence, and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math, then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?​

Or to put it another way:

In light of the fact that some things are a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament how could one contend that god was absolutely moral because morality was absolute, and the nature of "right" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence as if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math?

Please note that germ of my question revolves around the concept of god's absolute morality, and not the fact that there's a difference in the sins of the OT and NT.

Or don't you contend that god was absolutely moral because morality is absolute? In which case, you're excused from class. :)

.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Please note that germ of my question revolves around the concept of god's absolute morality, and not the fact that there's a difference in the sins of the OT and NT.

SHEESH

You dont need to be sarcastic about it. I can read.

Who knows if god is absolutely moral. Im just on RF to learn stuff. I do not know what a god is to be serious over questions about it.

So, you asking why would sins in the OT not be in the NT if god is morality absolute that doesnt change from one time perod to another??

If god is moral without change (absolute and timeless) why would there be sins in the OT but not in the NT?

I think there is a coment somewhere up in my noggin but instead of guessing games and tongue twisters, what the world are you trying to say?
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Not talking about judicial law. Perhaps if you read it again.
Convenient you ignore the other two. (Perhaps you should take your own advice). Catholic tradition makes a three-way distinction of law within the Old Testament, only one of which is still binding of human beings. The Decalogue is a very good starting point as to what is still binding. It's almost as if you think Christian tradition isn't aware of the Old Testament.

Leviticus 6:2
You are guilty of sin against the Lord when you do any of these things:
when you lie about what happened to something you were taking care of for someone else;
when you lie about a deposit[a] you received;
when you steal something;
when you cheat someone;
3 when you find something that was lost and lie about having it;
when you fail to keep a promise;
or when you do any other bad things like these.
Lying and dishonesty are still sins.

Leviticus 19:5-8
5 “When you offer a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the Lord, you must offer it in the right way so that you will be accepted. 6 You may eat it the same day you offer it and on the next day. But if any of that sacrifice is left on the third day, you must burn it in the fire. 7 You must not eat any of that sacrifice on the third day. It will be unclean, and it will not be accepted. 8 You will be guilty of sin if you do that because you did not respect the holy things that belong to the Lord. If you do that, you will be separated from your people.
Ceremonial law governing the temple sacrifices. Made defunct by the incarnation of Christ and institution of the New Covenant.

Leviticus 20:18
18 “If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly time of bleeding, both the woman and the man must be separated from their people. They sinned because they exposed her source of blood.
The Old Covenant had stringent laws regarding ritual purity, ultimately serving the ceremonial. Contact with blood was considered unclean. As was eating certain foods or failing to perform the appropriate ablutions. Ritual purity laws are no longer relevant because Christians don't believe Judaism is still in effect. Nevertheless, sexual misconduct is still sinful. If anything sexual morality was made even more stringent by the New Covenant, as Christ categorically forbade polygamy, divorce and remarriage.

God hasn't changed, but due to the incarnation our relationship with him has. The Old Law was given to a specific people within a time and place. The New Law was given to everyone forever. What was specific to the governance of the Old Law is defunct not because God has changed his mind but because its purpose of setting the stage for the incarnation has been accomplished. Christians believe this happened a little over two-thousand years ago. If Christ had not come, or Jesus was not who he claimed to be, the Old Law would still be in effect and in effect only for the Jewish people. So in either case, you at least can eat all pork you want without incurring sin.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
SHEESH

You dont need to be sarcastic about it. I can read.
Truthfully, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. just merely wanted to clarify.

Who knows if god is absolutely moral. Im just on RF to learn stuff. I do not know what a god is to be serious over questions about it.
A lot of people feel he is.

So, you asking why would sins in the OT not be in the NT if god is morality absolute that doesnt change from one time perod to another??
Yup.
By definition an absolute moral precept wouldn't change.

If god is moral without change (absolute and timeless) why would there be sins in the OT but not in the NT?
Well, I suppose god could change in some way, but not his absolute morality, although it could be discarded.

I think there is a coment somewhere up in my noggin but instead of guessing games and tongue twisters, what the world are you trying to say?
Let me put it another way.

Morality is absolute, i.e. it doesn't change. What is morally true in one time is morally true in all times.

If god is moral in any way his morality has to be absolute in nature. This follows from the definition of morality above.

Therefore, what god deems to be moral in one time has to be moral in all times.

Because morality deals in rightness and wrongness it can be said that the nature of right and wrong (the nature of morality) is right and wrong in all times. And this can even be said to surpass space, time, and existence, In other words, absolutely nothing can change the absolute nature of morality. And because this is the morality under which god operates even he can't change it. To do so would render him not moral. He would have removed himself from the class of moral beings

AND this is exactly what happened to be the case when god made a change in the morality between the OT and NT. What he deemed to be immoral in one instance was no longer immoral in another. God chose to ignore the nature of his morality and changed it from absolute to conditional, a utilitarian form of "morality" sometimes called utilitarianism. In effect, he is saying that his sense of right and wrong has changed, and depends on the circumstances: what may be wrong today may be right tomorrow. So if you're concerned about doing something today because it 's wrong, just wait until tomorrow or the next day when it may be just fine.

.
 
Last edited:
Top