Biblical/Religious Morality vs Social Morality: changing with the times, and not

[Y_lifter]

An idea struck me while washing the vehicles last weekend about Biblical vs. Social moralities.
And how some have changed with time, and others have not.


I considered how society over time has changed some biblical moral laws with the times,
and yet not changed others yet.

Let me splain.. Hopefully I can get this clear.

OK, back in biblical times, both old and new testaments teach that homosexuality is wrong or Immoral if you will.
-Hence society, following along in general over time, has made it also wrong both in mindset and within the law.
Sodomy laws, Man+Woman marriage issue etc. Only very recently has society begun to make the concept of homosexuality Less Immoral if you will, but still a stigma, especially among religious believers.

But, also back in biblical times, it was an accepted practice for men to marry 14 year old girls,
have many sex partners/slave girls
-But Modern society has made this morally Unacceptable and by law.


My point using these 2 examples is that some concepts of what is judged right or wrong by society have changed over time completely and rather quickly. Sort of a 180 if you will.
And others have not been changed as rapidly or completly.


thoughts ?

 

[WODIN]

Morals are fluid in their relavance to a society. The ancient greeks considered the love of two men to be the highest expression of love and that men had wives solely for procreation and duty to propogation.

Spartans kept boys as lovers, raised them and taught them how to fight and wage war as a means of developing a bond that was considered so strong that it would encourage a warrior to fight harder knowing that he was protecting the life of his beloved.

These both pre-date christianity.

My point is that morals are fluid and shift over time and adjust to the needs of society in relationship to the wants of a society.

 

[Delinquent]

This is the reason why complete separation of church and state will never happen. Politicians create referendums to create such laws based on the opinions of their constituents. If these people are bible thumping zealots, their politicians will more than likely support such narrowminded thinking thus you have laws reflecting such views.

I also completely agree with your view that society is finally becoming more open minded but current laws are preventing most from even looking into the possibility that they may not be that bad. The problem won't go away until religion goes away. Unless of course God himself comes down and states that certain things are deemed acceptable and others aren't. As long as you have these "members of the cloth" stating their agenda as God's word, people will continue to think they live in the dark ages

 

[EnderJE]

So...basically, gay sex is wrong and I should have 13 more wives. Got it.

 

[Y_lifter]

I understand that morals are fluid and should change with society and time.
My point was that some seem to do so, and others do not.

My example of most societies' moral views on homosexuality from biblical times(which is where many modern moral and legal judeo Anglo concepts stem from IMO) forward to modern times,
was the one I felt has not changed with time as it should.

While other Biblical era views have been changed drastically in western culture.
(women's place in society, monogamous marriage)

 

[EnderJE]

So, the more interestering question is who's agenda are "we" following?

 

[mrplunkey]

Here's another interesting thought...

The bible is pretty straightforward on male/male sex in condeming it.

The bible does not specifically speak against a woman "laying" with another woman. Furthermore, kings routinely had dozens (or even hundreds) of wives and consorts. Other men of power had slaves and/or handmaidens for their wives. Just think about it... Soloman had over 800 wives -- you think he *never* asked two or more of them to join him in bed? And if he did, you think they *never* touched or played woman-on-woman, but instead only touched him? And, mind you, this is the guy who was allowed to build the temple in Jerusalem, hence he was smiled-upon in God's eyes...

 

[Y_lifter]

Some societal roles and rules have been altered mainly due to Anglo's moving from a 100% paternal rules society to a mixed one.

2 men together would be a sign of weakness in a paternal society,
where 2 women at that time would not.

 

[Y_lifter]

So, the more interestering question is who's agenda are "we" following?

Or better yet

Who's agenda are athiest following ?

 

[mrplunkey]

So...basically, gay sex is wrong and I should have 13 more wives. Got it.

Actually, that is pretty much it. If you are a person of power, wealth or influence you'd have multiple wives as well as consorts. Your wives would probably also have handmaidens too, so you'd get to play with them as well.

Kinda makes you not as worried about the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery", eh? That commandment was more about stopping married women screwing married or unmarried men... not about men getting a little ass on the side.

Sadly enough, the whole monogomy-via-christianity thing comes from Jesus' singular reference to a man and his "wife" (singular). He never explicitly said "dont marry more than one wife and never take on a consort or your wife's handmaiden" -- people chose to write that in there. Funny thing is, Jesus spent time with prositutes -- and even forgave their sins. You'd think the same people who read something as broad as monogomy into Jesus' singular reference to a wife would also recognize his obvious endorsement of prostitution.

So what's my point? It sure as to hell wasn't a guy who dreamt-up this one-and-only-one wife system we deal with now. It was probably setup by the same person who decided to go for "give me half your shit if it don't work out".