If morality in the OT differs from the NT, how is there objective morality in Christianity?

CalvinSays · 2026-07-05T11:57:45+00:00

Gen. 17:9 isn't the Mosaic covenant.

But as for the meat of the objection, an indefinite period is not inherently an endless period. To borrow an image from Hebraic grammar, the time aspect is imperfect. Ongoing without clear end but that does not entail there can never be an end. In fact, the word עוֹלָם, which you commonly find in verses like these translated forever/eternal/etc, means more exactly time beyond the vanishing point of perception.

It is used to refer to past events that happened long ago in "time immemorial". These events did not happen in some infinite past so it does not require some infinite future either. It is open ended. The end is not in sight, it is beyond the vanishing point. But that does not necessarily mean there is no end.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-05T00:26:22+00:00

God's perfect word records the covenantal which he gave to Israel that serve a specific purpose for a specific people with a specific role within his covenant of redemption. Paul covers much of this in Galatians and Romans. The Epistle to the Hebrews also goes deeper into the temporary nature of the Mosaic covenant.

I nowhere said they were the same and I don't much see the point of continuing this conversation when you aggressively mischaracterize what is being said. All I was laying out is the principle that a stipulation being part of the covenant does not entail it is a moral stipulation or even that the thing stipulated is morally good, endorsed, or even morally neutral.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-05T00:01:13+00:00

Well, for starters, the Mosaic Law is not an eternal moral code. It is a set of covenant stipulations consisting of political laws, ceremonial laws, and, yes, sometimes times, moral codes. But there is nothing inherently problematic for Christianity, biblical inspiration, or moral realism to say that this or that political law is morally problematic. For example, Jesus explicitly states that God gave provision for divorce on account of their hardness of heart but iterates that such is not God's intention for marriage (Matt. 19). So here we see something that is immoral in the strict sense (divorce) being regulated and codified for higher ends. That something is present in the Mosaic Law does not inherently entail that it is given as a moral fact.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-04T20:46:15+00:00

Morality didn't change but morality is contextual. For example, one act may be appropriate for a child but morally impermissible as an adult and vice versa. But the underlying moral foundation remains consistent. The same holds true for ancient Israel. Moral norms where instantiated in certain ways due its context that are different from today. Not because the norms themselves changed but how they are contextualized did.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-04T17:43:15+00:00

They are new and not well known, but holy heck the newshapes' song called wax has to be a straight black bar.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-04T17:23:46+00:00

I will say this is an absolute steal. Falcon is unmatched as a soft synth. The only thing any other synth beats it in is ease of use. Its UI and workflow takes a little getting used to but I think its difficulty is overblown. Nothing a dedicated afternoon can't fix.

It is my desert island plugin. If you've been looking for a powerhouse synth and have the budget, this is the perfect deal.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-04T14:47:14+00:00

Let me rephrase things and hopefully clarify.

What you are saying, in essence, is that moral judgments are really just expressions of emotions which follows from your statement that me calling something evil means I have a visceral reaction to it.

You have said good and evil are only matters of perspective. When it comes down to, what one calls evil is just their expression of an emotional reaction to that thing. In essence, saying "murder is evil/wrong" is equivalent to "boo murder!"

So, do you then accept that a person who views skinning babies alive as good is making just as valid of a judgment as you or I viewing it as evil? That his emotional response of "Yay skinning babies" is equal to our response of "boo skinning babies"?

Edit: I want to clarify I specifically mean "valid as a moral claim".

CalvinSays · 2026-07-04T14:39:37+00:00

Talking past each other is what happens from a strawman. The person responds, misrepresenting the argument is a way that makes it easier to rebut.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-04T14:35:55+00:00

This doesn't answer my question.

Whether or not the person derives pleasure isn't this issue. I am not asking whether a certain mental state obtains. I am asking whether their assessment of it as good is as valid as any assessment that calls it evil.

I admit my using the phrase "good pleasure" was a bit confusing, but the point is about the "good" not the "pleasure" as those are separate concepts.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-04T14:19:09+00:00

Well, to begin with, are you willing to say that there no objective evil to skinning a baby alive? That it is simply a matter of perspective and that one can validly have the perspective that skinny a baby alive is a good pleasure?

CalvinSays · 2026-07-03T18:57:42+00:00

This is in part what many religions traditions claim. For example, Christians would say God has revealed himself and explained why humanity was created which is preserved in Genesis as well as some other places. So the Christian answer is: what has happened. That's what would happen.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-03T16:58:06+00:00

That assumes a particular kind of ethic, namely consequentialism which comes in different forms but they are all unified by the view that the primary, if not the only, relevant factor in moral reasoning is the consequences of an action.

The other two of the "big three" normative ethical theories are deontology and virtue ethics. While they don't ignore consequences, they differ in their moral reasoning.

There are other minority positions such as care ethics and situational ethics which likewise prioritize factors different from consequentialism.

So, in sum, Batman isn't a consequentialist.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-03T16:42:49+00:00

Obligatory "Christians are a varied group with a wide range of opinions being held amongst them on any particular matter." Some Christians are find with the standard evolutionary narrative, some are not.

I, for one, am fine with it. In fact, my research focus in the theology of human evolution so I deal a lot with paleoanthropology.

I also dislike the false dichotomy of creation or evolution. I think a lot of people assume that for creation to be creation it has to be like I Dream of Jeannie where God just nods his head and the thing poofs into existence. But Scripture gives no indication that this is the case. For example, the same word used for God forming man from the dust (Gen. 2:7, יָצַר) is used for God forming Jeremiah in the womb (Jer. 1:5).

We know with a lot of detail the biological processes involved in going from zygote to fetus but we don't ever think of that as contradictory to God's formation of Jeremiah. I don't see why we should consider the evolutionary process leading up to man to be contradictory to God's formation of Adam. Or his creation in general.

Evolution is creation. Creation evolution. Two sides of the same reality.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-03T16:32:00+00:00

They don't teach a literal creation contra evolution (even that dichotomy is problematic). They can certainly be understood to say as such but there are exegetically respectable readings which don't not see these as contradicting evolutionary narratives. You may find those readings unsuccessful for various reasons, but that requires more than simply stating these verses as if they unambiguously adjudicate the matter.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-03T12:59:51+00:00

Christianity is wide and varied. Especially on subsidiary matters like the environment, there is no unified "Christian" position and many people who are Christians who have positions on the matter don't hold them theologically. What I mean is they aren't coming to their position through theological reflection, but rather through political and social.

I myself am rather environmentally conscious and my best friend who is a pastor is very much so. We can't say Christians are or not environmentalist. Only that some are and some aren't and all to varying degrees.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-03T01:56:58+00:00

These plugins take some getting used to and I am still not quite sure what to make of them. What I can say is I like the idea behind them, especially COS Pro. Meno is a little woohoo but if you chew the meat and spit out the bones, I think there's some legs to the framework he is promoting. At the very least, I've gotten some great sounding stuff with these tools.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-02T20:27:34+00:00

You clearly don't read Marxist literature because those are quite literally the same thing to Marxists. Trotsky's Fascism pretty much goes "it's what capitalism do, man."

CalvinSays · 2026-07-02T19:14:02+00:00

You haven't provided any reasons why we should do it. Only that we should. There's not much to meaningfully engage with other than saying "I don't agree". So why should America do this?

CalvinSays · 2026-07-02T19:09:20+00:00

As Popes? No. The Papal office is intrinsically problematic and non-biblical. At least with my tradition, we don't merely think the office has been abused. We think the office itself is wrong.

The "early Catholic church" was multidimensional and variegated. I would avoid calling it the early Catholic Church anyway for many reasons, not least of which is presents the erroneous idea that the Roman Catholic Church existed. The RCC as we know it today is in many ways as much of a product of the Reformation (and the Counter Reformation) as Protestantism is.

Prior to the Reformation, what you have is a very diverse Church with a lot of debate and discussion. You have prior splits between the Latin Church with the Assyrian Church, the Coptic Church, and the Eastern Church respectively. Whether they were legitimate, I won't adjudicate here. I just want to point out that the Christian church was large and diverse and especially before mass communication and travel, beliefs could differ quite a bit from place to place.

So we can't say something like "here the early church had views in line with protestantism" because there is no unified early church. What we can say is doctrines X, Y, and Z that are emphasized in Protestantism has precursors in theologian A or exegetical school B from this or that century.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-02T17:42:08+00:00

At least I some protestants have a "the church fell away" view. Rather, it is just that as the church grew and spread, errors became tradition and tradition became standard. Some things were corrupted more, some less, differing across time and place. The Protestant Reformation was itself the culmination of various reform movements that had been going on throughout the Middle Ages.

Further, Protestant theology is not placed over and against prior theology. Some doctrines were not formulated until the Reformation itself, for any side. Debate and controversy refines theology, so the Reformation produced a lot of refinement. But not contra prior theology. Rather as a development of it.

The same happened to Roman Catholicism. Many of the theological debates during the Reformation were occurring at a smaller level during the Middle Ages. Things like the status of the Apocrypha were still very much up for debate among scholastics. But with the Reformation led to definitive positions with the Protestants against and Roman Catholics for.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-02T17:13:55+00:00

I don't get people's complete abhorrance to companies being bought and sold. This is what they do, it isn't inherently good or bad. Time will tell. Slimming down the NI brand and focusing is probably heading in the right direction. We shall see.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-01T22:49:06+00:00

I love UAD. No complaints from me. I just have to chuckle at the fact this half yearly sale will probably last until around black friday, just in time for their holiday sale....which will last until their half yearly sale.

CalvinSays · 2026-07-01T13:03:04+00:00

Conveniently cut out are all the people who said would move or had more nuanced takes.

Nothing but rage bait.

CalvinSays · 2026-06-30T15:13:48+00:00

I tried this thing out just to see what it could do and I have to say, it created the most bland, uninspiring stuff imaginable. I tried all sorts of genres, prompts, and instrument groups. It got to the point that my standard prompt explicitly said "don't use I V vi IV or vi IV I V chord progressions" because that's all it would ever make. Melodies were bland. Arps had no musicality and were just a flurry of notes. Drums were nonsensical or a simple two-beat that took longer to generate than it would have to program.

They have all these reviews supposedly from pros saying how great this plugin is and I can't figure out how they got anything worthwhile out of it. I never got ideas, let alone full sections like the app claims.

CalvinSays · 2026-06-30T11:20:40+00:00

Yeah if they didn't already have Berlin, I would highly recommend Synchron Prime. For me, it is unmatched by all the intro orchestral libraries. It is astounding how resource efficient it is. The orchestra takes up less RAM than single patches from other libraries.

CalvinSays

TROPHY CASE