Legislating morality: An Example

[Alcott]

I understand what you are saying. I just disagree. You're not going to be mad at me, are you?

No, what good would that do either of us? But I am interested now in your claim that morals are not relative to cultures or generations. Was God wrong to give the Israelites so many rules he didn't give 'us' Christians, including allowing slavery and so many death-penalty offenses?

 

[canadyjd]

No, what good would that do either of us? But I am interested now in your claim that morals are not relative to cultures or generations. Was God wrong to give the Israelites so many rules he didn't give 'us' Christians, including allowing slavery and so many death-penalty offenses?

Obviously, God is never wrong and never evil. The Old Testament Law is good, and perfect. The Israelites could not keep them perfectly, as God demanded, (neither can we) but that doesn't change the fact they are good.

God did not invent slavery. God took an existing institution that was invented by men, and gave the Israelites (who had been slaves, themselves) rules to govern their conduct toward their slaves. This included not mistreating them and eventually freeing them.

God then used the analogy of "slavery" to demonstrate how people are enslaved to sin. Much of the Old Testament and New Testament deals with language from the slave trade. Redemption, ransomed, etc, all come from the slave trade. Crucifixion was called a "slave's death" by the Romans. There are many more, especially in Romans. God allowed slavery so that we could understand the consequences of sin, and the great sacrifice Jesus made for us on that "slave's tree."

Concerning the death penalty offenses of the Old Testament. They demonstrated the seriousness of the offenses against God and His Law. Part of the implementation of the death penalty concerned the dispensation of justice among the peoples of Israel. Again, Israelites could not avoid the corruption of God's perfect Law with partiality, bribes, etc.

In John 8:1+, Jesus forever changed the implementation of the death penalty. According to the Law, a person could be executed on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses, and the witnesses where the first to throw the stones.

Jesus changed that requirement from 2 or 3 witnesses to "the one among you who is without sin" is now the first to cast the stones. Only God is without sin, therefore, only God and impartially dispense justice, including the death penalty.

peace to youraying:

 

[Alcott]

Alright, answer your own question with a Yes or No:

"So "morality" is relevant to the time period and culture in which we live? Is that what you are saying?"

 

[canadyjd]

Alright, answer your own question with a Yes or No:

"So "morality" is relevant to the time period and culture in which we live? Is that what you are saying?"

No

peace to youraying:

 

[Alcott]

Then it's 'moral' to execute child for cursing his parents today? Or did God command an immorality to be done centuries ago?

 

[canadyjd]

Then it's 'moral' to execute child for cursing his parents today? Or did God command an immorality to be done centuries ago?

No, it is not "moral" to execute a child for cursing his parents, today. No, God did not command an immorality to the Israelites.

It is moral/right/good for children to honor their parents. This has always been the truth, in every culture and every time period. That is the standard God has put into place.

It is also true that every sin committed, including the cursing of parents, deserves death. That is the standard God has put into place.

God's dealings with the Israelites was a unique instance in human history. The Law served a unique function in revealing the righteousness of God and in pointing to the need for Jesus Christ.

It is inappropriate, therefore, to use the Old Testament Law as an example of "legislating morality" in the same sense as the United States government of 1776 (or today) legislating it's own morality, relative to the time period.

Jesus often spoke of those who would insist on the "letter of the law" and miss the meaning of the "spirit of the law". This is what you are doing by suggesting that either it is moral to execute children today for cursing their parents, or that God commanded an immorality to the Israelites.

peace to youraying:

 

[Alcott]

No, it is not "moral" to execute a child for cursing his parents, today. No, God did not command an immorality to the Israelites....God's dealings with the Israelites was a unique instance in human history.

If it is indeed not moral and indeed God commanded it, how do you explain (1)that morality is not legislated not then, not now, or not both? and (2)that God did not command an immorality unless morals are relatvie to the time and culture one lives in?

 

[canadyjd]

If it is indeed not moral and indeed God commanded it, how do you explain (1)that morality is not legislated not then, not now, or not both? and (2)that God did not command an immorality unless morals are relatvie to the time and culture one lives in?

I explained it to you. Did you read what I wrote? You are missing the spirit of law (children should honor their parents) by dwelling on the letter of the law (the penalty for sin is death).

The principles still remain. They have not changed. Children should honor their parents. Sin deserves death. The execution of the punishment has not been given to a government (the Israelite nation, or the United States) but has been reserved for Almighty God.

The Israelites demonstrated they could not carry out the punishments with the perfection God has demanded. They showed partiality: took bribes, etc. In doing so, they demonstrated their need for a Savior.

God, therefore, will execute the judgement He has ordained. All who sin shall die. All who die without Christ shall suffer the wrath of God.

peace to youraying:

 

[Alcott]

That answer is unsatifactory in regard to the topic of this thread. Alright-- morally, children should honor their parents, and in ancient Israel that morality was legislated into law and punished offenses of a kind with the death penalty. If you claim that's not legislating morality,--- your're dumb. But for today... since we consider it a greater evil to execute a child for cursing his parents than for the child to curse his parents, that is our law; outlawing a hyper-extreme punishment for a moral wrong because such a punishment is a greater moral wrong. That's also legislating morality.

 

[TC]

Every law on the books is legislating morality, it just comes down to whose morality we are going to legislate - will we stick to the judaeo/christian values or adopt some new morality ( like that espoused by the atheists)?

 

[canadyjd]

But for today... since we consider it a greater evil to execute a child for cursing his parents than for the child to curse his parents, that is our law; outlawing a hyper-extreme punishment for a moral wrong because such a punishment is a greater moral wrong. That's also legislating morality.

Then you do believe God commanded immorality...that Almighty God commanded a "hyper-extreme punishment that is a greater evil than cursing parents".

Then you must also believe the laws of men (especially here in the United States) are superior than God's law. God just didn't know what He was doing when He gave His Law, but we got it right (the slaughter of the native Americans notwithstanding)

Since your laws are superior to God's law, you must be superior to God.

And you are calling be "dumb".

peace to youraying:

 

[Alcott]

Then you do believe God commanded immorality...that Almighty God commanded a "hyper-extreme punishment that is a greater evil than cursing parents".

No, it's you who said morality is absolute and not changed by differing times or cultures; therefore God did command an immorality or else at any time or place executing a child for cursing his parents is not an immorality... which is it?

God just didn't know what He was doing when He gave His Law, but we got it right (the slaughter of the native Americans notwithstanding)

Is their slaughter of white settlers and travelers also "notwithstanding?"

And you are calling be "dumb".

I sure am.

 

[canadyjd]

No, it's you who said morality is absolute and not changed by differing times or cultures;

Morality is absolute. You believe it changes with times and cultures.

You said

Alcott said:....since we consider it a greater evil to execute a child for cursing his parents than for the child to curse his parents, that is our law; outlawing a hyper-extreme punishment for a moral wrong because such a punishment is a greater moral wrong.

You are saying Almighty God's commandment is "hyper-extreme", "a greater evil", and "a moral wrong". You believe that man's law is better than God's law. Is that what you believe?

....therefore God did command an immorality or else at any time or place executing a child for cursing his parents is not an immorality... which is it?

I will try this again. If you continue to ignore what I am saying, I will simply ignore you.

I will not accept you false choices as being the only ones.

God did not command an immorality. His law is perfect and just. It was given to the Israelites, who were unable to keep it perfectly. Had they been able to keep it perfectly, then executing a child for cursing his parents would have been just and right.

God's law has not changed. The implementation of the death penalty has changed.(John 8) What men were unable to do, God has reserved for Himself. He alone will judge with righteousness. He alone is the one without sin.

Therefore, since God has reserved the implementation of death penalty for Himself, it would be immoral for someone to kill their children for cursing them.

We have gone astray on this thread. You believe everything that is legislated is a "moral issue", even federal holidays, even the width of railroad tracks. I disagree, and find your argument laughable. You think I'm dumb.

Let's call it a day.

peace to youraying:

 

[Alcott]

Morality is absolute. You believe it changes with times and cultures.

Actually it does. Unless you consider it evil for NT Christians to eat pork or shellfish, or to not have their baby boys circumcised.

You said You are saying Almighty God's commandment is "hyper-extreme", "a greater evil", and "a moral wrong".

Didn't you just say I believe morality changes with times and cultures? Therefore I don't think God commanded a great evil.

You believe that man's law is better than God's law. Is that what you believe?

Nope.

I will try this again. If you continue to ignore what I am saying, I will simply ignore you.

:type: :type:

I will not accept you false choices as being the only ones.

Oh? What other false choices are there?

God did not command an immorality. His law is perfect and just. It was given to the Israelites, who were unable to keep it perfectly.

What a newsflash!

Had they been able to keep it perfectly, then executing a child for cursing his parents would have been just and right.

If "they" kept the Law perfectly no child would have cursed his parents, therefore there would have been no "just and right" execution because there would have been no such offense.

God's law has not changed.

Yeah? When was your latest sin offering?

The implementation of the death penalty has changed.(John 8)

The death penalty is significant part of law, ain't it? Anyway, the case you are talking about is suspect, as the oldest manuscripts do not contain the "adulterous woman" incident, and there was no abolition of the death penalty promulgated for any and all capital offenses.

What men were unable to do, God has reserved for Himself. He alone will judge with righteousness. He alone is the one without sin.

Okay, no prison time for murder, robbery, rape, et al; no fines for running a red light or building a garage without a permit; no prosecution for painting hate messages on a church or synagogue... only God is without sin, only He can judge anyone for anything. Correct?

Therefore, since God has reserved the implementation of death penalty for Himself, it would be immoral for someone to kill their children for cursing them.

But morality is unchanging by time or culture, you say. How was it He gave such implentation before? One of your contentions is not true.

We have gone astray on this thread. You believe everything that is legislated is a "moral issue", even federal holidays, even the width of railroad tracks. I disagree, and find your argument laughable. You think I'm dumb.

Ain't you?

Let's call it a day.

It's a day.... uh, what is?

 

[gerald285]

That iissue should be left as a freedom of expression. It has nothing to do with moral or immoral.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Guys, guys, guys! Since it is my morality that we are supposed to be legislating, I have this to say:

The Law has not changed. It has been fullfilled. Christ fullfilled the Law FOR us so that we don't have to. Christ did it and it's done. This is why we don't still sacrifice or execute our unruly children.

Where does that leave us, in matters of morality? Well Christ gave us the answer: Love your God and love your neighbor. All morality goes back to these two principles.

So, if the width of railroad tracks is a safety issue, then it is possible that it is a moral issue. If it is simply an issue of convience, the morality of it is not significant.

Ya'll been arguing for two days over basically semantics. Ever think that maybe both of you are making a mountain out of a molehill?