It is no news that given the changing perception bordering moral issues, many religions are compelled to subtly shift their moral stance to sometimes, completely opposite arrangement to their previous stance. But what does this fluidity in moral stance imply for a religious organization?

Most religious people don't realize it but change in religious moral stance invalidates its claim on objective truth.

Let me explain.

Saint Augustine once said "If you believe some part of the scripture and not the others, it is not the scripture you believe but yourself"

Religion is built on the principle that its moral prescriptions are based on objective codecs inspired by the very creator of the universe.

Take Christianity for example. In Christian theology, the following follows:

1. God is the source and authority of fundamental Christian moral positions.

2. God is infallible and cannot make mistakes or lie.

3. The bible (New Testament as it applies in Christianity) contains words inspired by God himself (word of God)

4. By this virtue of being the word of God, the bible is an infallible source of morality and truth.

Now, given the above premises, why would a Christian's moral outlook based on biblical provisions change?

If it does, it puts the infallibility of God, whom by definition, is the source of this proscription, into question.

If God is infallible, his words would remain valid and true across time. Hence, if God says A is wrong then A remains wrong across every time.

If moral positions, supposedly inspired by God (canonized by orthodox tradition) changes, then in what way would one assert the truthfulness in Christian faith?

If a Christian can cherrypick which moral requirement he will obey and which he will not, is he not directly putting the infallibility of God or at least the validity of Orthodox canonization (bible) in question?

1. If he is questioning the infallibility of God, the very conception of God in Christian theology perishes. Because the only reason someone would take a moral stance opposite that of God whom he agrees to be infallible and absolutely good is only if such a person believes himself to be of better moral judgement than God. That implies that to this person, God is neither infallible nor absolutely good. That is what Christianity does when it takes moral stances consonant to biblical (God's) provisions.

2. On a second note, if a Christian takes a moral stance that is consonant to biblical stance, such a person questions the validity of orthodox sources (bible) on morality, then isn't he then questioning the orthodox source's validity on truth? Then, how is he sure anything recorded in the bible is in fact truth? Doesn't he in effect invalidate the very foundation of the Christian faith?

Religious people don't realize this, but the very idea that morality is from an Infallible source gives the subject a perpetual and unchanging nature.
The very idea that God, who is the sources of morality, is all good and infallible, means his moral laws are perpetually good and unchanging.

Then, the very practice of choosing what to agree to and what not to from orthodox sources invalidates the fundamental claim of truth from this sources.

A morality that can change is not from an objective infallible source
A morality that is from an infallible source cannot change.

Christians should In fact think about the implications the practice of moral cherrypicking have on the basis of their faith.
It not only invalidates their claim on truth, it refutes their conception of God.

Because you can't have it both ways. It is either God is infallible and absolutely good hence is moral provisions can neither change nor become less good.

Or, God isn't infallible and absolutely good, hence his moral provisions are subject to human revisions because we are somehow a much better judge of morality and goodness.

Choose!

It would have been better if you listed those moralities you think Christians cherry-picked in their Bible...

I don't think God, the Almighty does not change. Why then do we have the New Testament (hereinafter referred to as NT). If you consider polygamy, for instance, it was permitted widely in the Old Testament (hereinafter referred to as OT), and divorce was legal upon issuing a wife a certificate to that effect. Christ came and even though he said he didn't intend to nullify the laws of Moses but to fulfil them, you and I can clearly see the carefulness of the transcribers so as not portray God changing the rules. Christ frowned against polygamy, and prescribed one wife to one man. The issue of divorce became unacceptable save for the case of infidelity, and in which case, the option to remarry is repealed.

This is my premise for drawing and propagating that God changes. It could be that He only had to change because of the dynamism in restoring and perfecting salvation, ie, for the benefit of man, but it's still a change. A departure from the doctrines He laid down in the OT. If you ask me, I'll say the NT evidences a changing/repentant God, who bore the grunt of it to restore mankind.

This is there counter argument, they will say "since no one knows ways which he worked, he can do whatever he likes" I have been presented with this reply before, not once, not twice