Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Does divine law change over time? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by darkred)
    it's always been obvious jonny alright this ends now
    Idk why you're so angry about it then?


    (Original post by RobML)
    What is happening in this thread?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Jonny's angry. Tell him to calm down pls
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnknownRoyalist)
    Idk why you're so angry about it then?
    Think you need to calm down now.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by darkred)
    Think you need to calm down now.
    You're violating me now. Step too far
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnknownRoyalist)
    You're violating me now. Step too far
    Jonnies need to be equals, Jonny. It's only fair
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by darkred)
    Jonnies need to be equals, Jonny. It's only fair
    Jonnies in crime. You've ruined this thread, good job
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    What happened to this thread?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnknownRoyalist)
    Jonnies in crime. You've ruined this thread, good job
    This thread was destined to be a flop, lbr.
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by darkred)
    This thread was destined to be a flop, lbr.
    True. What's lbr????
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnknownRoyalist)
    True. What's lbr????
    lets.be.real
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by darkred)
    lets.be.real
    Calm down..
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    If so why, and how is it communicated? In the majority of contemporary religions, their prophets are the sole and final messengers and manifestations of God's divine law (communicated explicitly by word and implicitly by action). But some modern believers would argue that some of the divine laws only applied in their time, but no longer. But how would this be known to be the case when there have been no subsequent prophets?

    (some of you may think this is a response to those that recently argued Mohammed having sex with a 9 year old is nothing to worry about because it was approved at the time. You're part right :mmm:)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    it's called "contextualisation/recontextualisation". It works like this.

    If you like the message implied by some episode, you take it at face value : it is clearly valid for all times and all places. Problem solved.

    If you don't like the message, or if it's so outrageous that it will get you in trouble if you defend it on your favourite forum, this is how you should proceed ;

    -you "contextualise". I.e., you replace the episode in its historical/geographical context., say, "in the 7th century, they all did that" or "in Arabia, black actually was often used to describe white"

    -once you have "contextualised" the episode/message in the past and in some specific location, you have to "recontextualise" to present-day TSR, i.e. you have to work out the ruling, or the message which would be implied if the original episode would happen in some other location of the contemporary globalised Universe

    just to take an example : let's say (just a random hypothesis) that Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, had sex with a 9-year old girl. How should this be "contextualised/recontextualised", and what ruling should be derived from it ?

    Well, to start with, you should remark that "girls matured much earlier in those days". And this was particularly true "in those hot climates"

    So, having sex with a 9-year old in 7th century Arabia, would correspond exactly to having sex, today, with a 16.5 year old in Lapland. Which is, as so happens, perfectly legal and OK, and Muhammad (the best of humans) is off the hook, and a shining example for us all.

    Now, that wasn't too difficult, was it ? Q.E.D. for the P.B.U.H.

    I agree that this procedure may seem a bit convoluted, and that it would be much easier if God would simply send a prophet each year so as to regularly update his message and the relevant rules to be derived (providing also a detailed google map attached)

    However, that would be far too easy. Hey, life is supposed to be a test, isn't it ? what would be the purpose of the test, in the first place, if all and sundry would get an A*? why should we support grade inflation in afterlife ?

    so, the convoluted system usually chosen by God makes sure that we never know exactly where we stand: we could actually be sinning horribly, without even knowing it. So, God provided that in this way we will be kept on our toes, and the suspense will last until the day of judgement, so we won't slack off at any moment. Very, very clever.

    Hope this helps.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No. Because it doesn't exist, or it wouldn't need updating, which it does. Ya get me?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    If so why, and how is it communicated? In the majority of contemporary religions, their prophets are the sole and final messengers and manifestations of God's divine law (communicated explicitly by word and implicitly by action). But some modern believers would argue that some of the divine laws only applied in their time, but no longer. But how would this be known to be the case when there have been no subsequent prophets?

    (some of you may think this is a response to those that recently argued Mohammed having sex with a 9 year old is nothing to worry about because it was approved at the time. You're part right :mmm:)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well they'll only claim there haven't been any subsequent prophets because it goes against their religion. But Mormons for example will say that their prophet came long after Jesus or Muhammad.

    For what it's worth, I don't think there is is any divine law as changing morality quite effectively demonstrates.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Well they'll only claim there haven't been any subsequent prophets because it goes against their religion. But Mormons for example will say that their prophet came long after Jesus or Muhammad.

    For what it's worth, I don't think there is is any divine law as changing morality quite effectively demonstrates.
    Maybe these new-fangled cults have the right idea, religiously speaking

    Even though I can easily argue against the existence of objective morality, changing ideas of morality does not disprove it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    it's called "contextualisation/recontextualisation". It works like this.

    If you like the message implied by some episode, you take it at face value : it is clearly valid for all times and all places. Problem solved.

    If you don't like the message, or if it's so outrageous that it will get you in trouble if you defend it on your favourite forum, this is how you should proceed ;

    -you "contextualise". I.e., you replace the episode in its historical/geographical context., say, "in the 7th century, they all did that" or "in Arabia, black actually was often used to describe white"

    -once you have "contextualised" the episode/message in the past and in some specific location, you have to "recontextualise" to present-day TSR, i.e. you have to work out the ruling, or the message which would be implied if the original episode would happen in some other location of the contemporary globalised Universe

    just to take an example : let's say (just a random hypothesis) that Muhammad, the Islamic prophet, had sex with a 9-year old girl. How should this be "contextualised/recontextualised", and what ruling should be derived from it ?

    Well, to start with, you should remark that "girls matured much earlier in those days". And this was particularly true "in those hot climates"

    So, having sex with a 9-year old in 7th century Arabia, would correspond exactly to having sex, today, with a 16.5 year old in Lapland. Which is, as so happens, perfectly legal and OK, and Muhammad (the best of humans) is off the hook, and a shining example for us all.

    Now, that wasn't too difficult, was it ? Q.E.D.

    I agree that this procedure may seem a bit convoluted, and that it would be much easier if God would simply send a prophet each year so as to regularly update his message and the relevant rules to be derived (providing also a detailed google map attached)

    However, that would be far too easy. Hey, life is supposed to be a test, isn't it ? what would be the purpose of the test, in the first place, if all and sundry would get an A*?

    so, the convoluted system usually chosen by God makes sure that we never know exactly where we stand: we could actually be sinning horribly, without even knowing it. So, God provided that in this way we will be kept on our toes, and the suspense will last until the day of judgement, so we won't slack off at any moment. Very, very clever.

    Hope this helps.
    So in that particular example you're suggesting that divine law works on a case-by-case basis, and Aisha was mature enough as an individual? Fair enough, but there are many many children now who are probably on the same level of maturity as Aisha was. Should Muslims justify having sex with them based on their religion? Also, it is nigh on possible for an Islamic theocracy to judge everything on a case-by-case basis as God is able to. Is this a violation of divine law? Lastly, this contextualisation does not work with laws like punishing sodomy and adultery. You can't really work your way around their definitions as they're totally unambiguous. If religious texts are the unchanging word of God then punishing these things remain the moral thing to do.

    Also, any notion of "tests" within a religion that worships an omniscient God is utterly meaningless.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Maybe these new-fangled cults have the right idea, religiously speaking

    Even though I can easily argue against the existence of objective morality, changing ideas of morality does not disprove it.
    I think it goes a long way towards doing so. If morality changes and varies even from country to country proving we're not instilled with any fixed morals. So if an objective morality does exist it would be entirely superfluous.

    Also, the idea of an objective morality invokes the problematic Euthyphro Dilemma for God.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    So in that particular example you're suggesting that divine law works on a case-by-case basis, and Aisha was mature enough as an individual?
    guess I should have titled my essay : "A modest proposal for recontextualising God's law in our time and place"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I think it goes a long way towards doing so. If morality changes and varies even from country to country proving we're not instilled with any fixed morals. So if an objective morality does exist it would be entirely superfluous.

    Also, the idea of an objective morality invokes the problematic Euthyphro Dilemma for God.
    An objective morality does not need to be an inherent part of and naturally made clear and distinct to the mind of every individual as you suggest. Other possibilites are that it is discovered through inward contemplation or is (on special occasion) communicated to us from an external, unchanging source (i.e. God). These allow for variation and changes in ideas of morality.

    My problem with the Euthyphro Dilemma is that it seems paradoxial and therefore a meaningless notion that objective morality to originates from outside of God (he is the creator of all), and it assumes the abritrariness of morality originating from God is a fatal problem. Everything is arbitrary once you dig deep enough- there's going to be final axiom that relies only upon itself at the end of every road. God is that final axiom.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    guess I should have titled my essay : "A modest proposal for recontextualising God's law in our time and place"
    Maybe you should: you could get some Saudi petro-dollar that way . Just make sure "our time and place" is contextualised to the Salafist interpretation of "time" and "place"...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    An objective morality does not need to be an inherent part of and naturally made clear and distinct to the mind of every individual as you suggest. Other possibilites are that it is discovered through inward contemplation or is (on special occasion) communicated to us from an external, unchanging source (i.e. God). These allow for variation and changes in ideas of morality.
    But there is no evidence for an objective morality and as I said, one that cannot be discerned would be entirely superfluous and thus can be discarded on the basis of Occam's Razor.

    My problem with the Euthyphro Dilemma is that it seems paradoxial and therefore a meaningless notion that objective morality to originates from outside of God (he is the creator of all), and it assumes the abritrariness of morality originating from God is a fatal problem. Everything is arbitrary once you dig deep enough- there's going to be final axiom that relies only upon itself at the end of every road. God is that final axiom.
    It is not paradoxical because it underlines a very important point. If God arbitrarily chooses what is right and wrong then his morality is just as subjective as ours, what you'd be implying is that his nature affects the objectivity of morality, which isn't an argument based on logic.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.