wof and Rachael

[BlessedAnomaly]

No, not Jacob's wife.

This is a Rachael that was born the same year as my oldest son, around 30 years ago. It serves no purpose to identify her any more precisely, at least not for this post. But the question I ask here is actually hers. It is an intriguing question. But somehow, this is the question that was the catalyst to cause her to move from Christianity to Atheism. I'm sure it was a slow move, but I don't have enough detail to be sure.

Anyway the question goes like this, paraphrased somewhat so you can't just pick it up and Google it and find Rachael. Some of you may know who I'm talking about, and, again, I see no reason to call out her full name here. Wouldn't be able to stop you, but here goes --

"We have a God who is absolutely moral, yes? He defines morality. He has defined it to be absolute. There is right. There is wrong. These are outside of creation, outside of the space/time continuum, outside of our very existence. Right/Wrong are as real as math is in defining the morality of our existence. So, why then, are there things that are sins in the Old Testament, but then they change and they are not sins in the New Testament? If morality is absolute, why did it change?"

Malachi 3:6​

For I am the Lord, I do not change;​

 

[e v e 21]

sin has always been the same. no change.

 

[Rachel Redux]

No, not Jacob's wife.

This is a Rachael that was born the same year as my oldest son, around 30 years ago. It serves no purpose to identify her any more precisely, at least not for this post. But the question I ask here is actually hers. It is an intriguing question. But somehow, this is the question that was the catalyst to cause her to move from Christianity to Atheism. I'm sure it was a slow move, but I don't have enough detail to be sure.

Anyway the question goes like this, paraphrased somewhat so you can't just pick it up and Google it and find Rachael. Some of you may know who I'm talking about, and, again, I see no reason to call out her full name here. Wouldn't be able to stop you, but here goes --

"We have a God who is absolutely moral, yes? He defines morality. He has defined it to be absolute. There is right. There is wrong. These are outside of creation, outside of the space/time continuum, outside of our very existence. Right/Wrong are as real as math is in defining the morality of our existence. So, why then, are there things that are sins in the Old Testament, but then they change and they are not sins in the New Testament? If morality is absolute, why did it change?"

Malachi 3:6​

For I am the Lord, I do not change;​

What was formerly a sin but isn't now? I'm not aware of anything.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

What was formerly a sin but isn't now? I'm not aware of anything.

Well, you and I had a similar discussion not long ago, which ended with you saying "Well, I don't believe that way." So we'll see where this goes. How about an example in reverse: ok in the OT (at least most of it) and not ok in the NT. Still speaks to a changing morality from an immutable God.

Matthew 5:31-32 (NET - emphasis in original)​

31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.​

So a divorce causes adultery.

Even more direct:

Malachi 2:16​

16 “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. “Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful.”​

He hates it. Those divorcing are guilty of violence.

Yet we know that Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1 told men to draw up a divorce document and give it to her. Boom! Divorced.

Was this Moses' own doing? Nah.

In Leviticus 22:13 we see that "if a priest’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and she has no children so that she returns to live in her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat from her father’s food." No punishment. No repercussions. No sin.

In Isaiah 50:1, "This is what the Lord says" --

Isaiah 50:1​

This is what the Lord says:​

“Where is your mother’s divorce certificate​

by which I divorced her?​

Or to which of my creditors did I sell you?​

Look, you were sold because of your sins;​

because of your rebellious acts I divorced your mother.​

The divorce is not the problem or the sin. As Jesus said in Matthew 5 above: "except for immorality," which agrees here. She wasn't sent away because of a divorce. It was because of rebellious acts, because of immorality.

So we have divorce in Leviticus and Isaiah (just to mention two) that is not looked upon as sin. It's ok. There's rules, but it's just fine.

And then we have Malachi and Matthew telling an entirely different story. Now it is sin.

So did the morality of divorce change in God's eyes? Did he change the judgement? No, not only the judgement but the calling divorce a sin or not calling divorce a sin. The morality defined by an immutable God...changed.

This is the kind of thing that the girl in the OP is asking.

 

[Rachel Redux]

Edit

 

[Rachel Redux]

One off the cuff answer (I know that's not good) is that God gave Moses very specific permission to make laws for the city sized group he was leading through the wilderness. He had to make certain compromises.
God didn’t change, no.

 

[e v e 21]

Well, you and I had a similar discussion not long ago, which ended with you saying "Well, I don't believe that way." So we'll see where this goes. How about an example in reverse: ok in the OT (at least most of it) and not ok in the NT. Still speaks to a changing morality from an immutable God.

Matthew 5:31-32 (NET - emphasis in original)​

31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.​

So a divorce causes adultery.

Even more direct:

Malachi 2:16​

16 “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. “Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful.”​

He hates it. Those divorcing are guilty of violence.

Yet we know that Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1 told men to draw up a divorce document and give it to her. Boom! Divorced.

Was this Moses' own doing? Nah.

In Leviticus 22:13 we see that "if a priest’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and she has no children so that she returns to live in her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat from her father’s food." No punishment. No repercussions. No sin.

In Isaiah 50:1, "This is what the Lord says" --

Isaiah 50:1​

This is what the Lord says:​

“Where is your mother’s divorce certificate​

by which I divorced her?​

Or to which of my creditors did I sell you?​

Look, you were sold because of your sins;​

because of your rebellious acts I divorced your mother.​

The divorce is not the problem or the sin. As Jesus said in Matthew 5 above: "except for immorality," which agrees here. She wasn't sent away because of a divorce. It was because of rebellious acts, because of immorality.

So we have divorce in Leviticus and Isaiah (just to mention two) that is not looked upon as sin. It's ok. There's rules, but it's just fine.

And then we have Malachi and Matthew telling an entirely different story. Now it is sin.

So did the morality of divorce change in God's eyes? Did he change the judgement? No, not only the judgement but the calling divorce a sin or not calling divorce a sin. The morality defined by an immutable God...changed.

This is the kind of thing that the girl in the OP is asking.

OFF TOPIC FOR WoF

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

One off the cuff answer (I know that's not good) is that God gave Moses very specific permission to make laws for the city sized group he was leading through the wilderness. He had to make certain compromises.
God didn’t change, no.

This "off the cuff answer" is calling for an immutable God, who is perfect in all his ways, and does not change from those ways to give a pass to sin. In the written law. Not just giving a pass, but we are speaking of doing so in the written law.

Even Romans 5:13 tells us that before the law was given, sin was in the world but was not imputed to the people because the law had not been given -- yet death still reigned. But grace through Jesus was always the plan.

God doesn't give mulligans. Sin is sin is sin to him. God shouldn't let something be a sin one day, but then not the next. Not as described in scripture.

But here, with divorce, there are two definitions from an immutable God.

 

[e v e 21]

Well, you and I had a similar discussion not long ago, which ended with you saying "Well, I don't believe that way." So we'll see where this goes. How about an example in reverse: ok in the OT (at least most of it) and not ok in the NT. Still speaks to a changing morality from an immutable God.

Matthew 5:31-32 (NET - emphasis in original)​

31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.​

So a divorce causes adultery.

Even more direct:

Malachi 2:16​

16 “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies. “Pay attention to your conscience, and do not be unfaithful.”​

He hates it. Those divorcing are guilty of violence.

Yet we know that Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1 told men to draw up a divorce document and give it to her. Boom! Divorced.

Was this Moses' own doing? Nah.

In Leviticus 22:13 we see that "if a priest’s daughter is a widow or divorced, and she has no children so that she returns to live in her father’s house as in her youth, she may eat from her father’s food." No punishment. No repercussions. No sin.

In Isaiah 50:1, "This is what the Lord says" --

Isaiah 50:1​

This is what the Lord says:​

“Where is your mother’s divorce certificate​

by which I divorced her?​

Or to which of my creditors did I sell you?​

Look, you were sold because of your sins;​

because of your rebellious acts I divorced your mother.​

The divorce is not the problem or the sin. As Jesus said in Matthew 5 above: "except for immorality," which agrees here. She wasn't sent away because of a divorce. It was because of rebellious acts, because of immorality.

So we have divorce in Leviticus and Isaiah (just to mention two) that is not looked upon as sin. It's ok. There's rules, but it's just fine.

And then we have Malachi and Matthew telling an entirely different story. Now it is sin.

So did the morality of divorce change in God's eyes? Did he change the judgement? No, not only the judgement but the calling divorce a sin or not calling divorce a sin. The morality defined by an immutable God...changed.

duplicate

 

[CharismaticLady]

No, not Jacob's wife.

This is a Rachael that was born the same year as my oldest son, around 30 years ago. It serves no purpose to identify her any more precisely, at least not for this post. But the question I ask here is actually hers. It is an intriguing question. But somehow, this is the question that was the catalyst to cause her to move from Christianity to Atheism. I'm sure it was a slow move, but I don't have enough detail to be sure.

Anyway the question goes like this, paraphrased somewhat so you can't just pick it up and Google it and find Rachael. Some of you may know who I'm talking about, and, again, I see no reason to call out her full name here. Wouldn't be able to stop you, but here goes --

"We have a God who is absolutely moral, yes? He defines morality. He has defined it to be absolute. There is right. There is wrong. These are outside of creation, outside of the space/time continuum, outside of our very existence. Right/Wrong are as real as math is in defining the morality of our existence. So, why then, are there things that are sins in the Old Testament, but then they change and they are not sins in the New Testament? If morality is absolute, why did it change?"

Malachi 3:6​

For I am the Lord, I do not change;​

Do you mean like the change in the Law regarding circumcision, keeping the Sabbath day, and unclean meats. They were all representative of what was to come. Once it came, it was no longer a sin to break. The Law was like kindergarten.

 

[Rachel Redux]

If YHVH didn't have some flexibility, mankind would have been completely destroyed many times over. He can and has changed His mind.
You didn't really address my point about Moses, either.

 

[e v e 21]

His law never changed.

What He did was annul the law of the fallen angels (sin and death) who made eden fall.
The cross was that legal anulling.

THe de facto to follow the legal will happen soon, at the Change.

He has never changed His view at all.

This current situation is about to end.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Do you mean like the change in the Law regarding circumcision, keeping the Sabbath day, and unclean meats. They were all representative of what was to come. Once it came, it was no longer a sin to break. The Law was like kindergarten.

Correct. I agree with you to an extent on these points. Paul tells us we are not under the law given in the OT, we are under Grace. But God did not flippantly make up some rules to follow. The intent of the law is still what is called God's Law or God's commandments - what has been written in our hearts.

The unclean meats might meet my OP question. They were unclean and God changes and calls them clean - Peter even fights him over it. But they are a representation of the Gentiles - once withheld and called unclean, but now God calls them clean: change of rule. But always part of the plan. He fooled you.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

If YHVH didn't have some flexibility, mankind would have been completely destroyed many times over.

Why did an immutable God need flexability? He's omnipotent. He knows all things that can and will happen and can make the plan from the beginning, flawlessly. If he needs flexability, then he is responding to an unknown.

He can and has changed His mind.

The point of the OP. Yet scripture claims he's immutable: he changeth not.

You didn't really address my point about Moses, either.

Show me scripture of this "very specific permission to make laws for the city sized group." Throughout the Torah God dictated the law to Moses. God made the law.

 

[CharismaticLady]

The unclean meats might meet my OP question. They were unclean and God changes and calls them clean - Peter even fights him over it. But they are a representation of the Gentiles - once withheld and called unclean, but now God calls them clean: change of rule. But always part of the plan. He fooled you.

They were not unclean when God gave man and beasts permission to eat meat after the flood without it being considered sin. The only time pork and rats were unclean was during the Old covenant. They are no longer a sin to eat in the New Covenant.

 

[Rachel Redux]

Why did an immutable God need flexability? He's omnipotent. He knows all things that can and will happen and can make the plan from the beginning, flawlessly. If he needs flexability, then he is responding to an unknown.


The point of the OP. Yet scripture claims he's immutable: he changeth not.


Show me scripture of this "very specific permission to make laws for the city sized group." Throughout the Torah God dictated the law to Moses. God made the law.

Exodus 18: 13 The next day Moses was settling disputes among the people, and he was kept busy from morning till night. 14 When Jethro saw everything that Moses had to do, he asked, “What is all this that you are doing for the people? Why are you doing this all alone, with people standing here from morning till night to consult you?”

15 Moses answered, “I must do this because the people come to me to learn God's will. 16 When two people have a dispute, they come to me, and I decide which one of them is right, and I tell them God's commands and laws.”

He legislated. Moses seat.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

They were not unclean when God gave man and beasts permission to eat meat after the flood without it being considered sin. The only time pork and rats were unclean was during the Old covenant. They are no longer a sin to eat in the New Covenant.

So God changed his mind on sin. Or the perfect judge told people it was sin when it actually wasn't? Or did the immutable God change?

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Exodus 18: 13 The next day Moses was settling disputes among the people, and he was kept busy from morning till night. 14 When Jethro saw everything that Moses had to do, he asked, “What is all this that you are doing for the people? Why are you doing this all alone, with people standing here from morning till night to consult you?”

15 Moses answered, “I must do this because the people come to me to learn God's will. 16 When two people have a dispute, they come to me, and I decide which one of them is right, and I tell them God's commands and laws.”

He legislated. Moses seat.

It says it right in what you quote: they are God's laws. Not Moses' after getting "very specific permission to make laws." No, Moses sat in the seat of a Judge before there were Judges, not the seat of the lawmaker.

God made the law, defining what was sin. God changed some of them. Thus absolute morality does not exist with our immutable God.

 

[Rachel Redux]

It says it right in what you quote: they are God's laws. Not Moses' after getting "very specific permission to make laws." No, Moses sat in the seat of a Judge before there were Judges, not the seat of the lawmaker.

God made the law, defining what was sin. God changed some of them. Thus absolute morality does not exist with our immutable God.

God is God...He can do whatever he wants to. And we should be grateful...it means that we receive mercy we don't deserve.

 

[CharismaticLady]

So God changed his mind on sin. Or the perfect judge told people it was sin when it actually wasn't? Or did the immutable God change?

Sin is going against what God commands. There was a reason why our diets went from vegetarian to anything that moves, to only what is clean for sacrifices to God, to anything that moves again. They were lessons.