Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Stop Messin']

Can you tell me why Christians are selective about which immutable Biblical laws they choose to follow? Is it cool to eat shrimp and pork, for example, because it's forbidden in the Old Testament but doesn't come up in the New? Or groom hair a certain way, or wear certain fabrics? If so, then why are the Commandments of Moses taken seriously? I would posit that the selective reading of the Bible is entirely a matter of convenience, and people adhere to those strictures which sound good to them, rather than to the Creator.

[jimwalton]

The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. So the rule of thumb now is to follow Christ’s example. We can, in that sense, ignore the law, because if we follow Christ’s example, we’ll get the actions of the law and the attitudes of the heart. Since the law was supposed to reflect the right attitudes, starting with the right attitudes will more often than not bring about actions that are in keeping with the law. But we don’t do them because of the law; we do them because that is what godly attitudes bring about. So all of the law was fulfilled in Christ and our behavior now is not based at all on the law but on Jesus’ example (cf. Romans 13.8-10). The coinciding with many points of the law is to be expected, but we are not living by even that section of law.

Obviously we don’t keep the OT laws about not mixing fabrics, refusing to eat shellfish, and stoning adulterers. The NT makes at least two things clear:

1. The sacrificial and ritual laws of the temple, sacrifices, and priesthood have been fulfilled by Jesus through the cross and resurrection. (see book of Hebrews)

2. The food laws, symbolic of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (Lev. 20.25-26)—that separation has been abolished in Christ (Eph. 2). See also Acts 10.

We can still find principles of Israel’s civil law to apply today (Dt. 25.4). The best way to derive principles from the OT law is to ask questions. All laws in all human societies are made for a purpose.

1. What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent?

2. What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed?

3. What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable?

4. What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection?

5. What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why?

6. What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld?

7. In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life?

8. What principle or principles does this law embody or instantiate?

We don't obey or disobey laws as a matter of convenience or personal preference. The Mosaic Law still counts, and morality matters, but revelation has been progressive, and now we know more than they did. The coming of Jesus, and his death and resurrection, changed (and fulfilled) many things. Just like in science—progress in our knowledge changes our thoughts and behaviors.

[Stop Messin']

I don't know, it seems like if the Bible can be discounted in huge chunks as old-fashioned, that leaves the whole thing in a similar position. Not to observe all the rules because you have a hunch some of them were canceled out... eternity in Hell seems like a steep price to pay for cutting your forelocks.

[jimwalton]

You speak as if there are no filters—it's either all or nothing. We are surely capable of discretion, discernment, reasoning, filtering, and making judgment calls. Just because you throw out the bathwater doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby. Throwing out whole chunks are understandings that we've had millennia to ponder, debate, and understand. It doesn't mean the whole thing is up for grabs.

[J Lord]

> All laws in all human societies are made for a purpose.

So would you agree that we should follow laws if doing so is likely to improve human well being in general, and discard laws that appear to be a detriment to human well being?

[jimwalton]

I think that's the wrong question, because human well-being is not the standard of right and wrong, and not necessarily the purpose for which laws are made. Possibly I am safe in interpreting it is the standard you have chosen, but human well being is surely not the only possible standard (since it's a moveable standard anyway) for the basis of law. Atheist philosopher Iris Murdoch argued that a transcendent notion of goodness was essential if notions of law based on "right" and "justice" were to be maintained. If she’s right, human well being is not an adequate foundation for law.

[J Lord]

In that case what are some examples of laws that you think are good laws but that you also think work to the detriment of human well being?

[jimwalton]

It's a matter of opinion, but the laws allowing abortion for convenience might fit into that category. Many could easily perceive that abortion limits the population explosion, prevents unwanted children, and allows women to continue their stride into the work force, becoming meaningful members of society, bread-winners, and contribute to the advancement of culture. I would contend that the evidence is strong that abortion is murder, that the fetus is a human life in its own right with its own unique DNA structure, and therefore it's wrong, despite the possible positive contributions to human well-being.

I would probably also put fetal stem-cell research in the same category. Fetal stem cell research depends on a supply of the products of abortion (spontaneous, ETP, partial-birth), which have required the destruction of an embryo. Yet people point to the benefits to the well-being of humanity to justify the cause.

- Nobody wants them
- They're going to be destroyed anyway
- It's just a bunch of cells, not a human being
- It doesn't carry the same worth
- let's at least do some research and get benefit for those with disease

But in reality, there has been no success with fetal stem cells, while there has been success with adult stem cell research. We have been doing bone marrow transplants and bone grafts for decades with positive results. Researchers are finding new uses and effectivenesses for adult stem cells all the time, but that has not been the case for fetal stem cells. I think the laws about fetal stem cell research are unacceptable laws built on pretense to justify the destruction of fetal tissue for the alleged "well being" of humankind. But I think these laws work to the detriment of human well being. Adult stem cell research is the far more promising avenue right now.

[J Lord]

> I would contend that the evidence is strong that abortion is murder, that the fetus is a human life in its own right with its own unique DNA structure, and therefore it's wrong, despite the possible positive contributions to human well-being.

But are you saying that in your opinion legal abortions, all things considered, improve the well being of humanity?

> But I think these laws work to the detriment of human well being.

In this case stem cell laws clearly are not an answer to my question. You think they are immoral and you also think they work to the detriment of human well being. This reinforces my contention that morality is a way of judging actions based on how they impact human well being.

[jimwalton]

> But are you saying that in your opinion legal abortions, all things considered, improve the well being of humanity?

No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I think legal abortion worsens the wellbeing of humanity.

> In this case stem cell laws clearly are not an answer to my question.

Hm. I thought I was addressing your question. I think that fetal stem research is also to the detriment of human wellbeing, despite being legal.

You and I have had this conversation before. I believe that morality is a way of judging actions based on how they align with God's nature—the moral objective. "Well being" is a moveable target, too easily susceptible to the whims of the powers that be or the current cultural mores, and not a reliable standard by which to judge actions. With the nebulous "well being" as a standard, man's cruelty can be deftly justified as nobility. Nazi Germany is the chef d'oeuvre of that storyline. The reasoning goes far behind our conversation, however.

If we accept an impersonal beginning for humanity (evolutionary naturalism), morals don't exist as morals. We are just the chance result of mass, energy, and motion—all impersonal. With an impersonal beginning, morals is just another form of metaphysics—of being. We are left to talk about only what is antisocial (detrimental to human well-being), or what society doesn't like (contrary to human well-being), or even what I don't like (morals is in the eye of the beholder), but we can't talk about what is really right or really wrong. If there is an impersonal beginning, we are only what we are by chance, and morals are a social construct of survival. In addition, if cruelty is part of our animal nature, and well-being is only a social construct for survival, there is no hope for a solution. Plato, Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus, J.L. Mackie, Joel Marks, and William Provine were all right: unless you have absolutes, morals do not exist. There is no real basis for fighting evil except that in the long run it may help us survive our meaningless existence for a longer time. But we are still ultimately subject to blind physical forces: some people are going get hurt just as some are going to get lucky, and there is no rhyme or reason in it, nor any injustice. There is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Just, as Dawkins says, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

But if humans have a personal beginning (theism), morals and metaphysics separate, meaning that right and wrong have true definitions, and cruelty cannot be passed off as noble. There is an objective moral standard defining right and wrong. Therefore, there is an honest ground for fighting evil, including social evil and social injustice. God didn't make things as they are now; he didn't make man cruel, but good. Humans made a mess, and it can be undone. Humans can be remade in the image of God who is acting to redeem them from their cruelty. There is a solution to the problem of man. We can have real morals and moral absolutes, for now God is absolutely good.

In an interview, Richard Dawkins was queried about the foundation of ethical values. Dawkins claims that all sense of value judgments are the result of the evolutionary process.

Interviewer: So therefore "good" is just as random in a sense as any product of evolution? Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.

Hm. The Nazis ruled to impose their morality of human wellbeing in a social evolutionary environment. The only way to challenge the Nazi ideal is to establish that there is a higher moral authority than human well-being, i.e., that there are transcendent grounds for morality and justice. Atheist Richard Rorty claims that humanity creates its own values and ideas and is not accountable to any external objectivity (theism) or internal subjectivity (conscience). But if Rorty is right, there is no ground for opposing Nazism. Morals are defined by the reigning power group. Instead, morals are only morals if defined by a universal objective.

You see, in your question ("So would you agree that we should follow laws if doing so is likely to improve human well being in general, and discard laws that appear to be a detriment to human well being?"), who gets to define "human well being"? Do the scientists, who want the chance to experiment and see what is possible? Do the people, who are generally motivated to decide what is in their self-interests? Does the government, whose concern is power? Does business, whose goal is a larger profit? "Human well-being" is a moving target; it's a foundation of sand.