Can moral priciples change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lukpet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lukpet

Guest
Sinful actions are in all ways a disobedience to God and a displeasure to Him. What God has defined as sin does not change because God does not change.

Morals are duties of life codified by man, they vary by culture and custom. To a great extent, we enjoy significant overlapping between what is considered moral and what is righteousness from God if we live in a Christian or Jewish culture, however not all things called moral are righteous before God.

Morals can and do change.
 
But for example: in the older text (1862) there is written that a action which can lead to arousal even if its non-sexual is sinful. However in the newer text (today) its much less strict there is written that a non-sexual action is not sinful except the arousal is wanted/desired.

Was that sinful at that time and isn’t today?
 
lukpet said:
But for example: in the older text (1862) there is written that a action which can lead to arousal even if its non-sexual is sinful. However in the newer text (today) its much less strict there is written that a non-sexual action is not sinful except the arousal is wanted/desired.

Was that sinful at that time and isn’t today?
Click to expand...
I believe the interpretation of the finer points regarding what is moral and what is not moral can change although the general moral principles do not change from one perspective to an entirely different one. This applies to any specific culture or religion. At the same time, there may be certain cultures which have an altogether different perspective on the general moral principles themselves. I am not saying which culture(s) or religion(s) are correct. Naturally, if you are a member or adherent of a given culture or religion, you believe that yours is the correct, G-d-given interpretation, including the specifics as well as the general principles. Let us also remember that older moral principles must often be applied to modern situations that involve nontraditional technology and innovations in living style. The moral principles may remain but they must be correctly applied, and that process of application may open itself up to competing or conflicting interpretations.

With respect to a given individual rather than a society or culture, the individual’s own moral principles may of course change over time and often do.
 
The moral law is how human beings relate to God, Who is unchanging. Therefore, the moral law cannot change, and has been the same from the beginning.

May God bless you all! 🙂
 
lukpet said:
But for example: in the older text (1862) there is written that a action which can lead to arousal even if its non-sexual is sinful. However in the newer text (today) its much less strict there is written that a non-sexual action is not sinful except the arousal is wanted/desired.

Was that sinful at that time and isn’t today?
Click to expand...
I think that was a clarification. It has never been a sin to put oneself in a near occasion of sin by accident, after all. Sin requires intent to pursue an end known to be offensive to God. Arousal is not a sin, per se. It is a near occasion of the sin of lust, however, and to pursue it willfully when one knows one cannot consummate the arousal licitly at some point down the line could be indulgence of lustful desires in and of itself.

The other possibility, of course, is that moral directives could have been handed down in the past not because of an incorrect understanding of moral principles but because of an incorrect understanding of human biology. In the past, there could have been mistaken ideas about what actions are chosen willfully and which are carried out by compulsions invisible to outsiders. That does not make the moral principle wrong, but only a wrong diagnosis of the context within which the principles are being applied.

For instance, there was a time when alcoholism was considered a mere matter of the will. We know the situation of most habitual abusers of alcohol is far more complex than that. When an alcoholic becomes drunk, the chain of decision-making is much different than when a non-alcoholic chooses to become drunk. If an alcoholic does not understand where and how to exert his or her will to remain sober, the chances of achieving sobriety are not good, even if the alcoholic has an honest resolve to do better. Even though the offense of drunkenness is a still the same offense, the understanding of when and how much a person is culpable for getting drunk has changed. Other offenses which used to be considered minor or of little account or even ones thought to be meritorious may later be appreciated as having greater gravity. It is not the principles that have changed, but appreciation of how the principles apply in a certain case that may change as human nature becomes better (or even differently) understood.
 
lukpet said:
But for example: in the older text (1862) there is written that a action which can lead to arousal even if its non-sexual is sinful. However in the newer text (today) its much less strict there is written that a non-sexual action is not sinful except the arousal is wanted/desired.

Was that sinful at that time and isn’t today?
Click to expand...
All Bible translations bear the characteristic of cultural influence, sin is not determined by what a particular translator chooses for modern words and phrases. Translations are all fallible and in some cases are corrupt with bias.

Here’s an example of a mild deflection of a sin definition done by translators:

Matt 19:9 note the original unambiguous word “fornication” is consistent in Greek, Latin, KJV, but in NIV is softened to “sexual immorality” which is the translator’s decision but is not inspired by our Lord.

original Greek:

λεγω δε υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου ει μη επι** πορνεια **και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται και ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται

Latin Vulagate

dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob **fornicationem **et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur

King James Version

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery

New International Version

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery
 
edwest2 said:
Moral principles cannot change.

Ed
Click to expand...
Sorry to disagree, however it is self-evident that morals can and do exist outside the righteous will of God and outside the unchangeable instructions from the church concerning sin.

We have all lived through the comfortable period of time in the use of the English language where “morals” were assumed to be synonymous with the God’s will for righteousness. Today this is no longer the case. The origins and correct usage of the word “morals” is based more in “ethics” than it is in “righteousness”. The standards for morals do change as social customs change.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding

Please examine the etymology of “morals”:

Origin and Etymology of moral (source: Merriam Webster Dictionary)
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom

First Known Use: 14th century
 
Buddyroe said:
Sorry to disagree, however it is self-evident that morals can and do exist outside the righteous will of God and outside the unchangeable instructions from the church concerning sin.

We have all lived through the comfortable period of time in the use of the English language where “morals” were assumed to be synonymous with the God’s will for righteousness. Today this is no longer the case. The origins and correct usage of the word “morals” is based more in “ethics” than it is in “righteousness”. The standards for morals do change as social customs change.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding

Please examine the etymology of “morals”:

Origin and Etymology of moral (source: Merriam Webster Dictionary)
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom

First Known Use: 14th century
Click to expand...
Look at it this way. God knows this. We can choose to follow His will or not. According to Church teaching, morals do not change.

Exodus 23:2

New International Version
“Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,”

New Living Translation
“You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you are called to testify in a dispute, do not be swayed by the crowd to twist justice.”

English Standard Version
“You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice,”

Matthew 7:13

New International Version
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

New Living Translation
“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.”

English Standard Version
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Look at it this way. God knows this. We can choose to follow His will or not. According to Church teaching, morals do not change.

Exodus 23:2

New International Version
“Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd,”

New Living Translation
“You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you are called to testify in a dispute, do not be swayed by the crowd to twist justice.”

English Standard Version
“You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice,”

Matthew 7:13

New International Version
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

New Living Translation
“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.”

English Standard Version
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many."

Ed
Click to expand...
Please show where church teaching instructs us that “morals do not change”, for that matter show where the word “morals, morality, immorality and such” exist in the original languages of the Holy Scripture. Hint; it can’t be demonstrated because those words didn’t come into existence until the 14th century.
 
edwest2 said:
I hope the following is helpful for all.

beginningcatholic.com/catholic-morality

Ed
Click to expand...
You are correct “beginning Catholic.com” does teach what you say, e.g. “We believe that moral truth is objective, and not relative to the subjective whims of culture or taste. It is valid at all times & everywhere. God is the ultimate source of all moral truth.”

I must disagree and rebuff this teaching and I hope it is not a precept of the Roman Catholic Church, it is an improper understand and use of the term “moral”. The reason is in the origins and other applications of the word.

By analogy suppose the Church were to teach and some translator were to write “thou shalt not fib” in place of “thou shalt not bear false witness” with regards to the Decalogue.

“Fib” is an ambiguous word meaning a childish lie, whereas to “bear false witness” is an explicit term for perjury while under oath.

In the 19th century, it was immoral for a lady to purposely reveal her ankles in public, today it is hard to define what is immoral for a lady to reveal. Sorry Beginning Catholic.com, morality does change.
 
Buddyroe said:
Please show where church teaching instructs us that “morals do not change”, for that matter show where the word “morals, morality, immorality and such” exist in the original languages of the Holy Scripture. Hint; it can’t be demonstrated because those words didn’t come into existence until the 14th century.
Click to expand...
You have to be a bit more specific. For instance, of abortion the Catechism says:

2271 *Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
(Didache 2,2:ÆCh 248,148; cf. Ep. Bárnabae 19,5:PG 2 777; Ad D 5,6:PG 2,1173; Tertullian, Apol.¹9:PL 1,319-320) God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (Gaudium et Spes 51 § 3)*

This one example clearly shows that there are moral laws that the Church teaches and has always taught are not subject to change or reinterpretation.
 
Buddyroe said:
You are correct “beginning Catholic.com” does teach what you say, e.g. “We believe that moral truth is objective, and not relative to the subjective whims of culture or taste. It is valid at all times & everywhere. God is the ultimate source of all moral truth.”

I must disagree and rebuff this teaching and I hope it is not a precept of the Roman Catholic Church, it is an improper understand and use of the term “moral”. The reason is in the origins and other applications of the word.

By analogy suppose the Church were to teach and some translator were to write “thou shalt not fib” in place of “thou shalt not bear false witness” with regards to the Decalogue.

“Fib” is an ambiguous word meaning a childish lie, whereas to “bear false witness” is an explicit term for perjury while under oath.

In the 19th century, it was immoral for a lady to purposely reveal her ankles in public, today it is hard to define what is immoral for a lady to reveal. Sorry Beginning Catholic.com, morality does change.
Click to expand...
It is true that some moral principles have to do with the effect a certain act will realistically have on others. This will vary from one context to another, just as surely as the most widely-accepted meaning of a word and therefore the meaning of an utterance will change over time.
 
EasterJoy said:
You have to be a bit more specific. For instance, of abortion the Catechism says:

2271 *Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.
(Didache 2,2:ÆCh 248,148; cf. Ep. Bárnabae 19,5:PG 2 777; Ad D 5,6:PG 2,1173; Tertullian, Apol.¹9:PL 1,319-320) God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. (Gaudium et Spes 51 § 3)*

This one example clearly shows that there are moral laws that the Church teaches and has always taught are not subject to change or reinterpretation.
Click to expand...
We are talking past each other, further discussion is pointless and immoral though neither of us is due for purgatory because of it. I will now cease my part in this discussion.
 
Buddyroe said:
We are talking past each other, further discussion is pointless and immoral though neither of us is due for purgatory because of it. I will now cease my part in this discussion.
Click to expand...
Immoral? And yet compatible with the Beatific Vision?
:confused:

Yeah, I think letting it go is just as well. I don’t fully understand what you’re getting at, but I don’t think we disagree, and maybe that is all you mean? 🤷
 
lukpet said:
But for example: in the older text (1862) there is written that a action which can lead to arousal even if its non-sexual is sinful. However in the newer text (today) its much less strict there is written that a non-sexual action is not sinful except the arousal is wanted/desired.

Was that sinful at that time and isn’t today?
Click to expand...
Since you initiated the question for this thread I will respond.

A particular translation of the Bible cannot be used to revise the definition of sin, the source text must be consulted when there is a question. Many publishers come up with their own translations sometimes to suit their own purposes.

The verse you are referring to is probably the words of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The plain understanding is that lusting (a contemplative act) for adultery is as sinful as committing adultery according to Jesus. This lust was sinful 2000 years ago and it is still sin. If you are reading a translation that says otherwise please be wary of other things it may say.
 
Buddyroe said:
Since you initiated the question for this thread I will respond.

A particular translation of the Bible cannot be used to revise the definition of sin, the source text must be consulted when there is a question. Many publishers come up with their own translations sometimes to suit their own purposes.

The verse you are referring to is probably the words of our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The plain understanding is that lusting (a contemplative act) for adultery is as sinful as committing adultery according to Jesus. This lust was sinful 2000 years ago and it is still sin. If you are reading a translation that says otherwise please be wary of other things it may say.
Click to expand...
Yet Judaism has a quite different perspective on lust than does Christianity. In Judaism, lust need not be eradicated since it is normal to lust. It should, however, be controlled and tempered by, first of all, NOT feeling guilty for lusting since guilt diminishes our ability to make changes and, second of all, filling the mind with more spiritual endeavors. Further, lust WITHIN marriage is both necessary and desirable, and is the very basis of marital bliss. Yes, lust, NOT love! Love is fine for friendship and companionship within and outside of marriage. But marriage must also, and primarily, contain desire and lust for one another for it to maintain its uniqueness compared to friendship. This may sound revolutionary, selfish, and immoral to some, in view of the teachings of Jesus regarding adultery of the heart and the teachings of love in the New Testament; but it forms a basic understanding of love and life according to the Hebrew Scriptures and is thought to be, as much as human emotions can at all characterize G-d, the essence of G-d Himself, Who is a G-d NOT of love according to Judaism since this description is too limiting, but equally a G-d of lust, desire, and passion, the meaning of a “jealous G-d.”
 
meltzerboy said:
Yet Judaism has a quite different perspective on lust than does Christianity. In Judaism, lust need not be eradicated since it is normal to lust. It should, however, be controlled and tempered by, first of all, NOT feeling guilty for lusting since guilt diminishes our ability to make changes and, second of all, filling the mind with more spiritual endeavors. Further, lust WITHIN marriage is both necessary and desirable, and is the very basis of marital bliss. Yes, lust, NOT love! Love is fine for friendship and companionship within and outside of marriage. But marriage must also, and primarily, contain desire and lust for one another for it to maintain its uniqueness compared to friendship. This may sound revolutionary, selfish, and immoral to some, in view of the teachings of Jesus regarding adultery of the heart and the teachings of love in the New Testament; but it forms a basic understanding of love and life according to the Hebrew Scriptures and is thought to be, as much as human emotions can at all characterize G-d, the essence of G-d Himself, Who is a G-d NOT of love according to Judaism since this description is too limiting, but equally a G-d of lust, desire, and passion, the meaning of a “jealous G-d.”
Click to expand...
Please understand the context: who Jesus is and what he plainly states in Matthew 5:27-28. Also please bear in mind He was addressing the (Jewish) multitudes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top