See my earlier blog entry for part one. If you see anything here you think you've read before, it's because I plucked it from the great minds of other atheists.

Chris,

Hello. My name is Michael, and I'm happy to discuss these issues with you. It appears that you and Josh have been exploring some pretty interesting subjects!

As to your question – it's a very good one. (I could argue about whether contemporary Western society is indeed "Christian", but for our purposes given the historical Christian roots of Western culture we can stipulate to that fact). Taking "punishments" in its broad sense I think you are right to reason that the prohibtions and penalties (e.g. execution) were not meant just for ancient Israel. I do think, however, that in some cases the Scriptures give flexibility and indicate the maximum allowable penalty. The Mosaic code has a high form of victim's rights embedded within it. For example, the maximum penalty for adultery is death for both the man and the woman (Lev. 20:10).
However, the victim (the offended spouse) could prosecute for a lesser sentence. This is what Joseph intended to do in the case of his "wife" Mary (they were betrothed but the offense was considered the same). He could have prosecuted her to the full extent but chose divorce instead (Matt. 1:19-20).
Other crimes, such as murder, allowed for no "plea bargaining" if you will. If one holds these revelations of justice (including its penalties) to be right for one time of history, what would change to make them substantially different for another time? If murder was wrong and punishable by death in ancient Israel (and other societies), murder should be viewed and handled the same way today.
The same could be said for homosexuality.

One of the reasons contemporary Christian societies have moved from the biblical standard is due to a certain view of natural law which posits that biblical revelation in these matters may be helpful but not necessarily applicable. The dominant natural law view sees man as capable by his own reason to determine the standards and limits of right and wrong apart from Scripture. This is one reason, in my view, contemporary Western society has moved away from the law of God. However, this is a complex issue and many in the natural law camp would not agree that they are going contrary to God's laws.

It's true that the Bible does not give an exhaustive treatment of every possible scenario but outlines the parameters of justice so that there can be a "progression" to comport with the exigencies of a changing society. For example, the Scripture does not mandate that execution must be carried out by stoning. The manner may indeed change over time depending upon various circumstances.

But I think you confuse the matter when you include things such as not touching a woman during her period, working on the Sabbath, and not wearing two kinds of cloth. Jewish and Christian theologians have recognized within the Biblical code itself a distinction between moral laws and ceremonial or restorative laws.
The Christian is morally obligated to observe every jot and tittle of the Older Testament law (Matt. 5:17-19); to disobey an pont is to violate the whole law (Jas. 2:10). There is a system, or interrelated set, of seremonial laws (cf. Eph. 2:15). The observation of this system of ordinace (redemptive ceremonies) was intended to be superseded (Heb. 7:11-12, 18-19); it was a foreshadow of Christ's saving economy and has become obsolete with His historical work (Heb. 10:1; 8:13). The continued observation of this system of shadows is to miss its true import and evidences condemning bondage (Gal. 4:9-10: 5:2-4). Therefore, in order to walk righteously before our God and not violate His reqirements at any point we must identiry and distinguish ceremonial observance from moral requirement. (The last four sentences are a paraphrase from Greg L. Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics, p. 211). It's not ultimately a matter of picking and choosing which ones to follow and which
ones to discard. The Scripture itself determines what is morally binding for all time, and what was only necessary for a specific redemptive period of history (i.e. ceremonial laws).

In one sense you are right about man's progression, but the question would still be, "How does one determine and measure man's progression?"

I surmise that you and I would think differently about capital punishment ("I'm not saying people should be killed"), for I would be one who holds that capital punishment is still valid. Man is made in the image of God and any unjust taking of life should merit the death penalty. The Scriptures make a clear distinction between just and unjust taking of life. The Sixth Commandment (as Protestants number it, "You shall not murder") prohibits unjust taking of life.
Some extend this prohibition to the state thinking that this applies to it as well, but the Scriptures (Rom. 13:1ff) say otherwise.

I gather that the aim of your comments is to demonstrate that because murders, homosexuals, Sabbath-breakers, menstrual period violaters, etc. are not all treated the same way proves that the Bible's meaning has changed to fit with modern society. If so, my comments above about the moral/ceremonial distinctions within Scripture should resolve that dilemma.

On the other hand, you also appear to be saying that these changes are rightly due to man's progression. It would depend on what you mean by "man's progression" in that case. So, at the root it appears that ultimately you see an abandonment of the Bible as a good thing (i.e. man's progression). Is it fair to say that you see those who hold to Biblical authority cannot account for these changes?

You say, "The reason most Christians don't want to act so harshly is because it goes against their own morality …" It seems to me that many Christians, in this issue, have been more influenced more by non-Christian thinking than by Christian thinking. As you imply, picking and choosing according to one's fancy is not commendable. The issue ultimately comes down to, "Who's law?
God's or man's?"

I'll leave it here for now. Thank you, Chris, for a thoughtful and engaging discussion. I appreciate very much your willingness to tackle these subjects.

Sincerely,

Michael

______________________________

Michael,

Thankyou for your reply.
I should be clear when I mention a Christian society. The majority of people in America would be considered Christian, however America itself is not Christian. The U.S. constitution speaks to that fact, as indicated by this extract:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'
Perhaps you mean by your definition, other religions are not true Christians because they have not interpreted the scriptures in the same way the Protestants have. Every religion makes claims to being the one true religion, but by definition, if they believe Christ came to Earth to die for our sins and they follow the Bible as opposed to any other holy book, they are Christians.
I'd just like to add the No True Scotsman fallacy here, I expect you will have heard of it, but I'll include it for clarity.

The name No True Scotsman comes from an odd example involving Scotsmen:

1. Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Obviously the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well, but in attempting to shore it up the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.

But back to the laws of the Bible. You indicate that some were meant to be discarded for being ceremonial, while the moral laws were to be kept. I looked through each of the scriptures you gave which were to nullify the ceremonial laws, but I saw none that were specific to those kinds of laws. They did mention that the law was open to change, but there was no mention of the kinds of laws that were open to change. From the wording, even the moral laws could have been open to change.

Were the people desiring to change the laws fully aware of God's orders not to? It says in Deut. 28:15 'However, if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: ' He then goes on to list the curses (in 52 verses, no less) which will be upon anyone who disobeys Him. Also, Jesus says in Matt. 5:17-19 that the laws were still to be followed in order to get into the kingdom of heaven. Clearly, Jesus' arrival on Earth did nothing to change the laws of the Old Testament.
A law I would consider ceremonial would be sacrificing animals, and if indeed the ceremonial law changed, that law would no longer apply. However, eating shellfish is not allowed either. Is that a ceremonial law? I would not consider it such, as it has nothing to do with ceremony. Why then, does no one today see it as breaking God's law if someone eats shellfish?

To step right into the theory that moral laws are the only laws to be upheld, I would have to mention slavery. It is not law to own slaves, however God clearly allows it and created laws regarding the treatment of slaves.
"If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property." (Ex. 21:20-21) The original Hebrew uses the word slave instead of servant, but mistranslations of the Bible are part of another argument not neccesarily part of this debate. The point is, there are many examples of God condoning slavery, not just that scripture.
Now, for any civilised person, slavery is wrong. Even hitting 'servants' is wrong. Did the laws regarding slavery change? I would have to say no. God allows it, he created it in fact, and Jesus' arrival did not change people's views of it. Right up until the time of slave ships which took Africans to America to be slaves, the Bible was used to show God's acceptance of it. It was only in the 19th century that humans considered slavery immoral. No sane person can even say that slavery used to be okay. It has never been 'okay', but it took the progression of man's morality to realise that. In this example, man's morals have outgrown the bronze age morals of the God written about in the Bible.

I'll move on to the punishments for disobeying God now. Your own morality tells you that someone can only be put to death if they murder another. It may surprise you to know I am not opposed to this, it is by definition the most fair punishment for taking a life. However I see a contradiction in what you are saying regarding punishment of other moral sins. Making a distinction between the different kinds of laws and arguing the case that only the moral ones are to be followed now is one thing, but it does not excuse the fact that Christians are not carrying out God's will to punish those who have homosexual relations, commit adultery, etc (all moral sins). You indicated it does not have to be by stoning, but the end result, death of the sinner at the hands of man, is still the thing not being adhered to.

You ask if I see the abandonment of Biblical laws as a good thing, and I would have to say yes. There are some I agree with, for example, not murdering people, but they come from my own morals. I do not follow them from the Bible. It's not fair to say that I see those who hold to Biblical authority not being able to account for the changes in the law. They account for them by means of apologetics, or finding new meaning to the scriptures, which before (even after Jesus' arrival on Earth) were used as examples in which to live a moral life. They account for them, but it's more a matter of updating the Bible to fit with the times than realising God's true meaning had been hidden all this time.

When you say 'It seems to me that many Christians, in this issue, have been more influenced more by non-Christian thinking than by Christian thinking.' I would have to include you amongst them. I would have to include most Christians. According to the statistics, 83% of Americans are Christian, so they are not being influenced by the decisions of the non-Christians. They are using their own morality to choose how they live. True Christians are the fundamentalist types who would indeed welcome the death penalty for homosexuals, for they are following the laws of the Bible. I do not agree with them, but they show the reality of what the Bible teaches. Everyone else waters down the Bible and continues to try and keep it as a book to live their life by, but the book itself, its true message of barbaric laws and punishments, is there for all to see. Which scenario is more likely? That the Bible is God's inspired Word, and although he condoned the stoning of disobedient children and the killing of homosexuals, the keeping of slaves and the death of women who did not cry out if they were raped, His rules changed as man's morality improved, and the reasons he had for allowing those things in the first place is at best, a mystery and at worst, a vivid picture of the evil, cruel attitude he has? Or that the Bible was written at a time when slavery was common, women were second class citizens and people didn't understand the science behind things such as a woman's period?

Thank you for taking the time to write to me, I do appreciate it, and I look forward to hearing from you again.

Chris.