The point of citing these verses is there is internal evidence in the New Testament, viewed as an early Christian document, for some kind of progressive revelation explanation being accepted.

God is regarded as permitting Moses to form a provisional (Deuteronomic) covenant that permits, and even advocates in certain circumstances, the hatred of enemies and divorce.

Jesus attributes this to the unteachability of the people, not to the wishes and final plans of God.

'You have heard how it was said, "You will love your neighbor" and hate your enemy.

But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you....

so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends down rain to fall on the upright and the wicked alike.

You must therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mt 5:43-48)

and

He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
Mt 19:10

and

At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; but in our time, the final days, he has spoken to us in the person of His Son, Whom He appointed heir of all things and through whom he made the ages.

Does this mean it shouldn’t be in the Bible or that it constitutes an error on God’s part?

I see no reason to assume that those two are the only options. If the author believed it, and the Bible is a record of its authors' beliefs, then it should be in there. If it's also an error, then the author made a mistake. I have no problem believing that the Bible's authors were sometimes wrong.

With a belief in God, any means are justified by the end.

Thank you for putting your finger on the problem.

I was thinking the same thing, Susan. God inspires and commands evil but it's not considered evil as long as we read it in light of Jesus coming centuries later. With a belief in God, any means are justified by the end.

Hi Susan,

Thanks for the link. I agree completely with St Thomas Aquinas' response to the problem.

"How would you know its nature is goodness? "
I've had a crack at answering this as best I could in reply to Ben Posin's most recent post above. Not sure if you've seen it yet. But basically it's based on the presupposition that we are made in God's image, and also that there is a standard for goodness. And in addition that this rests on trusting that what seems to be true in this regard (standard of goodness, and our innate desire for goodness) is in fact true.

But to explore the idea of a standard of goodness, I need only appeal to a deity whose nature is goodness.

How would you know its nature is goodness?

http://www.answers.com/topic/euthyphro-dilemma

Most people on this planet, when they say "god" mean something else.

+5, hadn't heard it put that way before. Fact. I like.

Mike, faith free

"You mean the catholic deity."

I happen to believe that the Catholic faith is the true faith. But my argument doesn't necessarily appeal to the Catholic faith. Although, probably for my proposition to make sense it might have to be the notion of God as understood by the monotheistic faiths. I'm not confident enough with other faith systems to defend how goodness and their understanding of god(s) are related.

Your response is valid when it comes to answering the "interesting" question of how I measure things up against the Standard of Goodness. To answer that I would indeed have to appeal to the Catholic faith. But to explore the idea of a standard of goodness, I need only appeal to a deity whose nature is goodness. This covers at least the monotheistic faiths and probably more. (e.g. I think it covers Plato's notion of God?).

That standard is God.

You mean the catholic deity. Yahweh. The catholic Yahweh.
Sorry. It's not fair to call one deity "God" when no one's explained