If God Was Absolutely Moral, . .

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For example?

Well, "the Law," for one. Even Jesus said He came to fulfill the law (mitzvot) and that "not a jot or tittle" would change. And then Paul changed pretty much all the jots and tittles. But if the Bible is to be inerrant, then God must have approved Paul's titillating changes, which would seem to mean the laws themselves changed, and the question posed by the OP is entirely legitimate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Truthfully, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. just merely wanted to clarify.


A lot of people feel he is.


Yup.
By definition an absolute moral precept wouldn't change.


Well, I suppose god could change in some way, but not his absolute morality, although it could be discarded.


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.

.

I guess my only coment is, his morality shouldnt change from one time period to another. Though believers see god somewhat in my opinion as we see people that we have our foundational morals but the icing is that we do flucuate from time to time without contradicting ourselves. Id consider god changing his mind him not being absolute, but I guess that word can mean something different to a believer.

 

[Skwim]

I guess my only coment is, his morality shouldnt change from one time period to another.

I certainly wouldn't think so, but there you are . . . . . .

 

[Neuropteron]

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.

.

 

[Neuropteron]

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.

.

Rules and even laws change with time and circumstances. But breaking a command of God as long as it is in force was ands still is a sin.
Nothing has changed except the option to disregard laws that are obsolete due to direct divine revelation.

For instance a young child might not be permitted to drive a motor vehicle. However once attaining the required age and maturity that restriction no longer exist.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

.

I don't know about the OT vs the NT.

I DO know about being a parent.

Morality being absolute...but people are very different and the rules about BEING moral change.

When my children were very young, I had very specific rules for going to the store:

1 Don't touch anything.
2. Stay within sight and if you don't, you ride in the kiddie seat.
3. Don't touch anything.
4. If you throw a tantrum, you ride in the kiddie seat and I ignore you.
5. Don't touch anything.

All this is to prevent the breaking of the 'moral rule,' 'don't steal.' (well, it's for more than that, but let's keep it simple.)

When they were a bit older, the rules changed:

1. Don't touch anything unless I say it's OK.
2. Don't play/eat anything until AFTER I pay for it.
3. If you try 1 or 2, you'll ride in the kiddie seat (even if you are 'too old') until I'm done shopping.
4. If you throw a tantrum, we leave the store and you get a time-out at home.

When they were old enough to leave my sight in the store, the rules were:

1. Don't shoplift.,
2. Don't ask me for stuff that I can't afford.
3. If you accidentally break rule #2, accept my explanation and don't ask again.
4. If you throw a tantrum, you get to wait in the car and you won't get the stuff I intended to buy for you in the first place.

I think that the above policies are recognized by most parents, right? The moral is the same in all of them ...it's wrong to steal. However, the method for GETTING the kids there differs.

So, I imagine, is the case with God and the various cultures He has to deal with.

 

[David T]

"and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math"

Thank God for math or we would be totally clueless.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

.

Isn't this a direct quote from Rachael Slick, the daughter of Christian apologist Matt Slick? It's a good question, and it's what led her to deconvert.

 

[Skwim]

Isn't this a direct quote from Rachael Slick, the daughter of Christian apologist Matt Slick? It's a good question, and it's what led her to deconvert.

It is, and thank you for recognizing it. I copied it some years ago, but without its source, and filed it away. It wasn't until I stumbled on it a couple days ago and decided to post it. Now, thanks to you I've been able to find a source for it---don't remember if it's the one I used---and give it a proper attribution:

OP source

Thanks.

.

 

[74x12]

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 rituals of the Law were given to teach people spiritual things. The new Covenant Law within the heart has a new way of teaching. So the written Law's ritual observances are surpassed for those who are spiritually minded.

 

[Skwim]

The rituals of the Law were given to teach people spiritual things. The new Covenant Law within the heart has a new way of teaching. So the written Law's ritual observances are surpassed for those who are spiritually minded.

And obviously they don't apply to those who aren't spiritually minded. Understood. It's enough to make the spiritually minded wish they weren't.

.

 

[74x12]

And obviously they don't apply to those who aren't spiritually minded. Understood. It's enough to make the spiritually minded wish they weren't.

.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you do understand. Anyone who really understands what the writings of the new Testament are saying will find the question as very easy. The reason the rituals of the new Covenant are no longer observed should be obvious. I'm surprised her dad(who claims to be a big shot in the scriptures) didn't show her better. Once you see it then it not only becomes obvious but beautiful and clear as day. I just feel saddened when I see Christians who think they're under the Law of Moses. Now I feel even more sad for someone who leaves Christianity because of this question!

It is, and thank you for recognizing it. I copied it some years ago, but without its source, and filed it away. It wasn't until I stumbled on it a couple days ago and decided to post it. Now, thanks to you I've been able to find a source for it---don't remember if it's the one I used---and give it a proper attribution:

OP source

Thanks.

I read her article. I find it unfortunate on a number of points.

• She admits that she never felt God's presence. (So then no holy Spirit. Nothing! Or else she lies.)
  
• I unfortunately find that she was probably under the Law all the time and didn't know it. She was not walking in the freedom of sons or daughters. The servant(whoever is under the written Law) doesn't remain in the house forever. (John 8:35) She left because of a question about Moses' Law. It was no coincidence.

 

[Skwim]

I'm sorry but I don't believe you do understand. Anyone who really understands what the writings of the new Testament are saying will find the question as very easy. The reason the rituals of the new Covenant are no longer observed should be obvious. I'm surprised her dad(who claims to be a big shot in the scriptures) didn't show her better. Once you see it then it not only becomes obvious but beautiful and clear as day. I just feel saddened when I see Christians who think they're under the Law of Moses. Now I feel even more sad for someone who leaves Christianity because of this question!

I read her article. I find it unfortunate on a number of points.

• She admits that she never felt God's presence. (So then no holy Spirit. Nothing! Or else she lies.)
  
• I unfortunately find that she was probably under the Law all the time and didn't know it. She was not walking in the freedom of sons or daughters. The servant(whoever is under the written Law) doesn't remain in the house forever. (John 8:35) She left because of a question about Moses' Law. It was no coincidence.

Enough of this wasteful sidetracking, and back to the subject of the OP. Here, take it phrase by phrase. Maybe it will help.

1) If God Was Absolutely Moral because morality was absolute,
2) and if the nature of "tight" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence,
3) and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math,
4)then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?
​

And ya gotta pay attention to 1), 2), and 3). They're all relevant.

.

 

[Earthling]

Paul explained it quite well. I'll post this in a modern translation so it can be more clearly understood.

Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one. Is the Law, therefore, against the promises of God? May that never happen! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, righteousness would actually have been by means of law. But the Scripture delivered up all things together to the custody of sin, that the promise resulting from faith toward Jesus Christ might be given to those exercising faith.

However, before the faith arrived, we were being guarded under law, being delivered up together into custody, looking to the faith that was destined to be revealed. Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor. - Galatians 3:19-25

 

[74x12]

Enough of this wasteful sidetracking, and back to the subject of the OP. Here, take it phrase by phrase. Maybe it will help.

1) If God Was Absolutely Moral because morality was absolute,
2) and if the nature of "tight" and "wrong" surpassed space, time, and existence,
3) and if it was as much a fundamental property of reality as math,
4)then why were some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?
​

And ya gotta pay attention to 1), 2), and 3). They're all relevant.

.

The Contract
The children of Israel entered into a written contract with God at Mt. Sinai. By entering into this legal agreement the children of Israel agreed to abide by the "Terms and conditions" of the agreement. So the terms and conditions was to be obeyed or else the covenant(contract) is broken. If the covenant was broken then there was a lengthy list of curses that would come upon them for breaking the agreement. The new Covenant is a new contract. It comes about through the resurrection. The resurrection changes everything. So that everyone who is empowered through resurrection has a new life. A new contract. A new terms and conditions.

However, this does not answer the actual question. The question you're posing here is why would God make a new "Terms and Conditions" when morality is constant? Why not just renew the same old "Terms and Conditions" if they were morally sound to begin with?

The Cage
You keep a lion in cage because it will eat you if you let it go free. The old Law of Moses is the cage. The lion our sinful passions.
On the other hand, why would you cage someone who wants to do good? Why cage a doctor for example? There are sick people and you have a doctor in the cage so he can't heal anyone? Why? So, what once saved lives(the cage) now is killing people because it's caging the wrong thing.

The Perfect Law of Liberty
So in conclusion the new Covenant is given for a new people(born of the holy Spirit) who are created to do good works and show the love of the Father. There is no longer a need for the cage. Love does no evil and so fulfills the Law of Liberty and should not be restrained.

 

[Skwim]

The Contract
The children of Israel entered into a written contract with God at Mt. Sinai. By entering into this legal agreement the children of Israel agreed to abide by the "Terms and conditions" of the agreement. So the terms and conditions was to be obeyed or else the covenant(contract) is broken. If the covenant was broken then there was a lengthy list of curses that would come upon them for breaking the agreement. The new Covenant is a new contract. It comes about through the resurrection. The resurrection changes everything. So that everyone who is empowered through resurrection has a new life. A new contract. A new terms and conditions.

However, this does not answer the actual question. The question you're posing here is why would God make a new "Terms and Conditions" when morality is constant? Why not just renew the same old "Terms and Conditions" if they were morally sound to begin with?

The Cage
You keep a lion in cage because it will eat you if you let it go free. The old Law of Moses is the cage. The lion our sinful passions.
On the other hand, why would you cage someone who wants to do good? Why cage a doctor for example? There are sick people and you have a doctor in the cage so he can't heal anyone? Why? So, what once saved lives(the cage) now is killing people because it's caging the wrong thing.

The Perfect Law of Liberty
So in conclusion the new Covenant is given for a new people(born of the holy Spirit) who are created to do good works and show the love of the Father. There is no longer a need for the cage. Love does no evil and so fulfills the Law of Liberty and should not be restrained.

Have a good day.

 

[74x12]

Have a good day.

Well I give up trying to explain this then. I think Rothschild answered your question with the quote from Paul.

 

[Fool]

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.

.

its kind of like western science, in the light of further understanding it can be reclassified.