Moral Relativism: John 8 vs. Deuteronomy 22

[ethereality]

I’m looking for advice and feedback. I’ve recently entered into dialogue with some Unitarian Universalists, who believe in spirituality, rather than religion, in moral relativism, relative truth, etc. I call it “Fuzzy Cloud Theology” (because their creed hiding under the curtain that there is no clearly defined creed), a primary tenet of their religion apparently being “be a good person, according to popular definition, and don’t make others unhappy”. I want to know if there are any flaws, any bad logic in my response to her. The context of this discussion was that I argued that God has revealed himself to us, and that he did not do it in contradicting terms (hence God is not one being for us and several beings for Hindus, thus spiritual truth exists, and some are correct about it, and others are incorrect about it).

She replies that God revealed something to Jesus that was contrary to what He revealed to Moses:
a Unitarian Universalist:

Ie, the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, about to be stoned. God revealed himself face to face to Moses, and clearly stated that an adulteress be stoned. The Pharisees, experts in Scripture, received this directive directly from Moses. But apparently Jesus received a different revelation…“Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”

me:

Ms. Lori, you contrasted Jesus’ commandment with God’s commandment and implied there is inherent disagreement between them. I don’t think this is the case:

Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man is discovered having relations with a woman who is married to another, both the man and the woman with whom he has had relations shall die. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

Regarding the death penalty – and I’ll start with murder and return to adultery: It seems to me possible for it to be just in one society and not in another, just at one time and not in another, with no contradiction or “moral relativeness”. The situation changes, but the commandment remains the same. Emphasis falls on the last line: purging evil from the community. Here in America, we can put murderers (or child rapists, drug dealers, etc) in prison for life, giving them the chance to change and purging evil from our midst. In other societies, they may not have those resources, no ability to purge evil without recourse to the death penalty. So the underlying commandment is, “Death only as a last resort,” not, “Death when you feel like it”.

Secondly (returning now to death penalty for adultery), times change. Cultures change. I don’t think we have a very good understanding of what life was like ~2500 years ago, and it is clearly foolish to treat their culture as if it were our own today. It is possible (isn’t it?) that, at the time of Moses, adultery hurt their society as much as _____ hurts ours today, necessitating purging evil – and since they couldn’t throw people in prison for life (exiles could still come back and continue hurting society), they resorted to the death penalty as a last resort, which God gave them permission to do (since ultimately we return to God, so it’s his call). Then fast-forward a few centuries, and it’s possible the culture has changed so that adultery doesn’t hurt society as much as it did back then, and the death penalty was no longer necessary for the good of society. So Jesus wasn’t “overturning” his Father’s commandment (since together they’re one being, as Jesus teaches), but rather reminding them that they didn’t need to resort to such drastic measures.

 

[Vince1022]

I’m looking for advice and feedback. I’ve recently entered into dialogue with some Unitarian Universalists, who believe in spirituality, rather than religion, in moral relativism, relative truth, etc. I call it “Fuzzy Cloud Theology” (because their creed hiding under the curtain that there is no clearly defined creed), a primary tenet of their religion apparently being “be a good person, according to popular definition, and don’t make others unhappy”. I want to know if there are any flaws, any bad logic in my response to her. The context of this discussion was that I argued that God has revealed himself to us, and that he did not do it in contradicting terms (hence God is not one being for us and several beings for Hindus, thus spiritual truth exists, and some are correct about it, and others are incorrect about it).

She replies that God revealed something to Jesus that was contrary to what He revealed to Moses:

See Matthew 5, Jesus notes He came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

In other words, to understand the Old Testament, one need to understand Christ. Not vice versa.

 

[TimothyH]

Unitarian Universalist:

Originally Posted by a Unitarian Universalist
Ie, the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, about to be stoned. God revealed himself face to face to Moses, and clearly stated that an adulteress be stoned. The Pharisees, experts in Scripture, received this directive directly from Moses. But apparently Jesus received a different revelation…“Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”

I see a problem with this logic and it shows a very shallow understanding of the divinity of Christ and of the basic nature of the Trinity.

God did reveal himself “face to face” to Moses and indeed gave Moses the law. Jesus however is God. Jesus therefor, unlike Moses, did not recieve revelation from God because he is the very same God which gave the revelation to Moses. Jesus was not receiving revelation and passing it on - Jesus is God himself revealing things to man in the same way God himself revealed the law to Moses.

The Father and I are one. (John 10:30)
The Unitarian Universalist is thinking of Jesus in terms of only his human nature and not in terms of his divine nature. Jesus himself even tells us that he is the very physical manifestion of revelation when he says,

I am the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6)
The truth is a person. His name is Jesus. Thus Jesus is revelation himself.

My point is that the God who revealed the law to Moses under which we were to stone adulterers and the God (Jesus) who commands us not to cast stones unless we are without sin are the very same God. The question becomes therefor, why did God reveal two different things to two differentt sets of people at two different times? Was there a contradiction? Did God change his mind?

Remember that the Old Testament was preparation for redemption and salvation in the New Testament - incomplete and forshadowing the reality that was to come.

“Both the man and the woman with whom he has had relations shall die” was an old covenant physical manifestation of the revelation of the effects of mortal sin - spiritual death - under the new covenant. In this way, as Vince states, Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish (or contradict) it. Paul explains this in an amazing way when he speaks about law and grace in the epistles.

What an amazing question you have posed. It has opened up several thoughts for me that I need to look into and study a bit and I thank you deeply for it.

I hope my answer helps.

-Tim-