They are applicable only if a society exists, and then only by convention. Why is stealing inherently wrong? Because it is perceived as harmful for the society by the society.
[kosta: The Ten Commandments are basic human tenets that were seen as harmful for the society.”]
“Harmful?” Are you serious?
My mistake. I wanted to say the Commandments prohibit those things the society sees as harmful. Something got lost in my sentence and I didn't notice it. Thank you for catching this omission.
My reference to immutable absolutes is to basic universally applicable laws
Noting is immutable about any standards. The Hawaiian culture permitted, and even required, incest from its royal family. the story of Lots daughters practicing incest is biblical and therefore must be morally acceptable. Right?
Most societies, including biblical Israel, practiced polygamy. If it is biblically acceptable, why is it is immoral among Bible-believers?
If racial segregation was morally acceptable 50 years ago, why is it now immoral? If homosexuals were considered felons in England until 1960's, how come they are not today?
>They are applicable only if a society exists, and then only by convention. Why is stealing inherently wrong? Because it is perceived as harmful for the society by the society.
I think it is a given that laws regarding interpersonal actions are applicable only if there are other humans. But while the reason for moral laws being wrong is to be seen, and thus breaking certain conditional laws in the Bible actions is sometime sanctioned when it fulfills their manifest intent, the authority for these laws in the Bible was God, who abundantly manifested (and continually) His authority to do so.
>>My reference to immutable absolutes is to basic universally applicable laws
>Noting is immutable about any standards. The Hawaiian culture permitted, and even required, incest from its royal family. the story of Lots daughters practicing incest is biblical and therefore must be morally acceptable. Right?
Wrong. But first, again, when i say immutable i am referring to basic moral laws and principals which are applicable to any society, directly or by adaptation. That some refuse such does not negate this, though it will have consequences. And there is such a thing as Biblical hermeneutics, that is, principals of interpretation which the Bible itself evidences.
As for incest, it is necessary to understand that,
1. Laws were given for a reason, and the Mosaic Law was added because of transgressions, (Gal. 3:19) and for good purpose. And that Biblical revelation is progressive, with the latter overall most fully explaining the former, with covenantal distinctions being given, all of which it manifests itself to do, and examining a subject in the light of what the Bible says as a whole is necessary.
2. As regards incest, it is evident that for some time after the Fall this was sanctioned, though restricted to some level, but it was clearly outlawed later. (Lv. 18) This is rather unique for this type of law, as from beginning to end there are no real changes in laws regarding illicit sexual relations. But understanding that the adverse affects of the Fall were partly progressive, thus the negative physical effects from incest need not yet have been a problem. The yet lengthy lifespans also allowed greater disparity between ages, so that all siblings need not have to been that close, if that makes any difference.
2. Merely recording an action does not, by itself, confer sanction, a fact which many examples can testify to. And in the case you refer to, (Gn. 19:30ff), the negative effects of this lack of faith (which is akin to resorting to worldly means to build a church) are alluded to, by its statements that fruit of this declension was the birth of the Moabite and the Ammonite tribes, (Gn. 19:37,38) Israel's future enemies.
Most societies, including biblical Israel, practiced polygamy. If it is biblically acceptable, why is it is immoral among Bible-believers?
Because the LORD Jesus, who would institute the promised New Covenant, intensified the law of Moses, and in so doing not only affirmed that what God joined together in marriage was (distinctly ) male and female, but that in the beginning it was supposed to be for life, and that it was one women for one man, (Mt. 19:4-9; Gn. 2:24) though allowances had been made due to the nature of man. And the New Testament, in dealing with marriage, treats it as the bond between one man and one women.
If racial segregation was morally acceptable 50 years ago, why is it now immoral?
Because it was not part of the basic immutable universal moral laws, but was a culturally applied law given to regulate, or manage, a preexisting practice which God did not institute. And that a progressive amelioration is evidenced in the Bible's dealing with the subject (which was not a monolithic institution, and is worthy of deeper analysis such as seen here), and that it was an institution which was only made tolerable for cultural reasons, as the church focused on spiritually overcoming situations, but is contrary to the practical outworking of such, and its foundational ideal of love for neighbor. Which thus enabled its complete abolition when the effects of a revived Christianity and a political context enabled it. See here for more on all this. In contrast, the basic positional distinction between males and females is upheld.
If homosexuals were considered felons in England until 1960's, how come they are not today?
Because England is post-Christian, and increasing legislating according to a depraved and infinite human reasoning, calling evil, good, and good, evil, and is increasingly suffering the effects thereof. As America is. are. That homosexual relations are condemned in the Bible is evident, being part of basic moral laws, and which has its foundation in the very beginning. See the whole examination here (my site) on this. Thanks be to God. And thank you for your questions.