It never ceases to amaze me seeing how Alan's various toadies here fawn over his posts and kiss his behind up to the brown spot. Evidence of this is in the responses to his post about OT & NT morality.
Alan uses his own lack of context to twist scripture as well as any JW writer. A case in point is his notion that adultery and fornication are primarily related to an economic loss (with a woman as property) and not a violation of a clear moral code. Alan has provided his own subtle twist by maximizing the patriarchal arrangement and minimizing the moral code of that time period.
He ignores the fact that God set apart His chosen people from the nations to be holier than those nations and to bring about the advent of the messiah.
Have their been changes in God's revelation of Himself to mankind? Sure, but that is not any inconsistency on God's part. Anyone who has studied theology can tell you that there are dispensation periods within scripture where God dealt with humanity in a consistent manner unique to each time period.
1) The Age of Innocence: Creation to the fall of man.
2) The Age of Conscience: The Fall to the Flood.
3) The Age of Human Government: The Flood to the Tower of Babel.
4) The Patriarchal Age: Abraham to the bondage in Egypt.
5) The Age of the Mosaic Law: Moses to Christ.
6) The Church Age: Pentecost to the Rapture.
7) The Judgement Age: The Rapture to the Return of Christ.
8) The Millenial Age: Armageddon to the 'White Throne Judgement'.
9) The Eternal State: Eternity of God with mankind.
Now, the various dispensations reflect the previous period to some degree but each one (in hindsight or foresight) shows an obvious change in the way God dealt (or deals) with mankind.
Let's look at some Levitical law to show how God dealt with Israel during the Covenant dispensation:
NIV Leviticus 20:10-24
10. "`If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
11. "`If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
The word here is "dishonored', which is a term related to 'holiness' and 'integrity'. This is not an economic term! If this was purely economic why are the man and woman BOTH given the same punishment?
12. "`If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
13. "`If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
'Perversion' and 'detestable' are terms used when discussing morality, not economics! By Alan's reasoning, what the 'man does with another man' should not bring about ANY punishment! Where is the violation of 'property rights'?
14. "`If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
15. "`If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
'Wickedness' is a moral term, not a economic one!
Why kill the animal? This is an act that God considers to be so detestable that it has ruined both the man and the animal. It is an act against the very nature of God's requirement that man needs to be holy before his God.
16. "`If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
17. "`If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
The sister is 'dishonored' not 'a economic loss'! He has disgraced her, another moral term! He may bring about inbred children that would be a heartache to all concerned.
18. "`If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.
19. "`Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
20. "`If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
21. "`If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
Here is granted the idea that a wife was the 'property' of the husband. However, you can clearly see the overriding moral reasoning in the laws.
Other than the natural health/mutation considerations this is a clear cut set of moral laws that the ancient Israelites were to keep, why is this?
22. "`Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.
23. You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.
God 'abhorred' the nations for their detestable lifestyles and if His people did not set themselves to a higher standard they would face His wrath, just like the nations experienced.
24. But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
So the Israelites were to be different than the heathen nations who previously occupied the land. Those had been 'vomited out' and the Israelites would face the same thing if they did not endeavor to be holy.
Is that clear enough for you Al Baby?
What did Jesus have to say about this subject?
NIV Matthew 19:4-11
4. "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,'
5. and said, `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ?
6. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
7. "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8. Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Here is the recognition of a dispensation period by our Lord Himself.
9. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
10. The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
And He now shows us the further revelation of God's view of adultery!
Below we have an answer to LDH's (Lisa?) usual ridiculous assertions about our Lord's commands (She says he only gave us two laws to follow):
NIV Matthew 5:27-32
27. "You have heard that it was said, `Do not commit adultery.'
28. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
31. "It has been said, `Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'
32. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
NIV Matthew 15:18-19
18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man `unclean.'
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Maybe you can look and see what he told the Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob.
Is that clear enough for you, Lisa?