About God's Morality...How would you reply to this?

[JRKH]

I see what you’re saying. Thank you.

So, would you share your view on why the Catechism says buying, selling, and trading slavery is immoral, but God instructed/regulated it for a time ?

The person who originally asked this question claimed that God either accepts slavery as good, or He has sinned, and used the following verse to back this view up.

“17 Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin.” (James 4:17)

I’m not saying God sinned, and I don’t believe He did or can, but for my own peace of mind I’d like to understand how we can accept that buying slaves is wrong, but God commanded it, and He doesn’t and won’t command a sin.

I would perhaps respond to this “trap” with Job chapter 38 in total…and question the questioner about just what was the “right thing” to be done at the time that God did it.

“Anyone who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin”…
Fair enough…
So - what was the right thing to do in 2000 BC or 1000 BC?
What was the correct thing for the Lord to do given the mindset and spiritual capabilities of a people who did not have the Holy Spirit?
Is it the right thing for a parent to expect a small child to comprehend and implement that which is beyond their years to grasp?
Was the questioner there? does he have more understanding than the Lord? Can He state with certainty that God did not do what was right and necessary at that time and place?

I contend that God DID know the right thing to do - at that time and for His Children - and He did it…Therefore He did not sin.

Of course today - living under the New Covenant of Love - with the Holy Spirit returned to the World - God expects more of us.

I may not have expressed this very well…but I hope you get the idea

Peace
James

 

[fred_conty]

How can God commit sin against himself? He can do anything he wants to do and it is never a sin. He isn’t a human being, he is God. And noone has the right to judge God. When we accuse him of sinning, it only shows where on the pecking order of brain power we really are.
St. Michael would be turning backward flips if he heard this. Let’s keep it a secret.

Just some thoughts.

 

[snarflemike]

Any reason why it seems that God’s telling the Israelites to buy slaves from other nations goes against the Catechism on the issue of buying,selling, or trading slaves ?

Is there something I’m missing ? This is starting to concern me because I can’t find an answer to this that seems complete.

The reason is that we are Christians and not OT Jews.

 

[SpeakKindly]

**Incase anyone out there who reads this thread later on is wondering about an answer like I was, I’ll post my answer that I find peace and faith in. I hope it helps others wondering about this question too.
**

God didn’t create evil. Evil is a choice. If we want to ask (incorrectly) “Who *created *so much of the evil on the Earth ?” Then the Bible, and Christian theology is clear on this, we did. Adam and Eve lived in perfection, and after they sinned life got hard and people turn further and further away from God. This hardship and growing of evil is directly related to their sin. Without sin in the world there would be no slavery, just like there would be no divorce.

God’s allowance and tolerance of some sin and evil is not His moral approval.

It’s also important to remember that the Bible was not meant to be a book about what every sin is. It doesn’t list all sins, just like that Mosaic Law didn’t, but it gives guidance on following God, it’s to give guidance on how to have faith and live it out. The Law was an example of God revealing what is right in the natural and spiritual law, before it could be fulfilled and fully understood. The Bible is a means to give enough guidance to bring people to faith and study and practice righteousness, but it’s not the only source of defining what is a sin and how to live righteously.** Legalism is what God didn’t want, it’s also what Jesus was against.**

Let’s say He did say “No divorce, and no slavery ever!”…

Okay, so then because of the people’s hearts they go ahead and do it anyway. God, being a just God, would HAVE to judge them, and essentially this would have meant the the Israelites might eventually have been wiped out completely. The point of the law wasn’t to point out every single sin ever (notice that abortion isn’t listed, but it can be extracted and understood from the Law ?), it was to discipline and guide the people and develop their morality, to point out what is sin, and have them recognize that the Law hangs on loving God and your neighbor. This message wasn’t revealed in full until Jesus came and died for our sins. If the people had followed the spiritual meaning of the Law, then slavery and divorce would not have needed to be regulated, but it was not commanded.

It was the people’s hearts and sinfulness that held them back from perfecting the Law in their lives and knowing the spiritual meaning of the Law in their hearts.

8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another;** for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.** 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Romans 13: 8-10)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God’s call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:

God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.13
1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart.16

However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come.“17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.” (Catechism)

 

[CaptBell800]

No. Owning another human being is wrong – unconditionally wrong. .

Why is it unconditionally wrong? By what authority do you decide that?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Why is it unconditionally wrong? By what authority do you decide that?

People have basic human rights and a dignity that requires they be afforded certain freedoms. Not be owned is a basic human freedom. If ever the golden rule should be applied, this would be the time. In what condition(s) would be right to own another human being?

 

[JRKH]

People have basic human rights and a dignity that requires they be afforded certain freedoms. Not be owned is a basic human freedom. If ever the golden rule should be applied, this would be the time. In what condition(s) would be right to own another human being?

I think that you have hit the nail on the head when you mention the Golden rule. If we treat another as we would wish to be treated…would that permit us to “own them?”
So we can say that God DID condemn slavery within the Golden Rule.

Now - If - because of particular circumstances - one were to find themselves owning slaves…(perhaps through in inheritance)…and could not easily or practically release them…the Golden rule would most certainly set high standards for how those people could be treated.

Unfortunately - in the cases where slaves were held, the golden rule was not generally applied by the owners.

Yes - The golden rule pretty much covers either situation.

Peace
James

 

[CaptBell800]

People have basic human rights and a dignity that requires they be afforded certain freedoms. Not be owned is a basic human freedom. If ever the golden rule should be applied, this would be the time. In what condition(s) would be right to own another human being?

You are assuming that humans have inherent rights. Why is that so?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think that you have hit the nail on the head when you mention the Golden rule. If we treat another as we would wish to be treated…would that permit us to “own them?”
So we can say that God DID condemn slavery within the Golden Rule.

Absolutely not. Jesus told slaves to obey their masters with fear. Look at Exodus 20:17, where in the ten commandments the slaves are considered owned by the male of the house.

Look at all of Exodus 21. Exodus 21:24 is where we get eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. It says the punisment matches the crime. But then just after that in Exodus 21:26-27 we get where knocking out an eye or a tooth means the worst thing that happens to the slave owner is the loss of a slave. Prior to that in Exodus 21:20-21 it says that killing a slave means punishment – but not death as it lists for things like cursing a parent. And the part that defenders of slavery so often choose to ignore, beating a slave where it dies a day or two later is fine and incurs no punishment whatsoever. Why? Because it says the slave is the owner’s property. That’s how it gets around the golden rule, by dehumanizing the slaves. You don’t have act kindly to them if they are not people.

And it’s not just one verse that calls slaves property. Also see Leviticus 25:44-46.

Now - If - because of particular circumstances - one were to find themselves owning slaves…(perhaps through in inheritance)…and could not easily or practically release them…the Golden rule would most certainly set high standards for how those people could be treated.

I’ve never heard of an instance where a slaveowner was legally incapable of releasing his slaves. Do you have any examples?

Unfortunately - in the cases where slaves were held, the golden rule was not generally applied by the owners.

The mere owning of a slave violates the golden rule on its very face.

You are assuming that humans have inherent rights. Why is that so?

All it takes is basic empathy and a cursory study of history to see that they do.

 

[JRKH]

Absolutely not. Jesus told slaves to obey their masters with fear. Look at Exodus 20:17, where in the ten commandments the slaves are considered owned by the male of the house.

Look at all of Exodus 21. Exodus 21:24 is where we get eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, etc. It says the punisment matches the crime. But then just after that in Exodus 21:26-27 we get where knocking out an eye or a tooth means the worst thing that happens to the slave owner is the loss of a slave. Prior to that in Exodus 21:20-21 it says that killing a slave means punishment – but not death as it lists for things like cursing a parent. And the part that defenders of slavery so often choose to ignore, beating a slave where it dies a day or two later is fine and incurs no punishment whatsoever. Why? Because it says the slave is the owner’s property. That’s how it gets around the golden rule, by dehumanizing the slaves. You don’t have act kindly to them if they are not people.

And it’s not just one verse that calls slaves property. Also see Leviticus 25:44-46.

I’m not an expert in OT law…In fact I’ve never really much looked at it since I live under the NT law of Love…
But you seem to be well acquainted with the OT law…Can you tell me if there are laws governing the treatment of slaves in the Mosaic Law…

I’ve never heard of an instance where a slaveowner was legally incapable of releasing his slaves. Do you have any examples?

I never said “legally incapable”. What I said was “easily or practically release them”.
As for an example of a person who found themselves in such a bind…Thomas Jefferson was one.
While on the one hand he did not feel that owning slaves was right, his entire life and personal economy was built on the slave system.
He was like the rich young man in the Gospel who was too attached to his possessions, his lifestyle etc.

The mere owning of a slave violates the golden rule on its very face.

I agree fully.

Peace
James

 

[CaptBell800]

All it takes is basic empathy and a cursory study of history to see that they do.

No it does not. This raises a whole host of other questions, and likewise relies on other assumptions.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’m not an expert in OT law…In fact I’ve never really much looked at it since I live under the NT law of Love…
But you seem to be well acquainted with the OT law…Can you tell me if there are laws governing the treatment of slaves in the Mosaic Law…

Unfortunately I can’t. I know there are people on CAF who are very well versed in Mosaic Law, but I’m definitely not one of them . Still, all it would show is the fallability of man. The passages I quoted from the Old Testament put into question the morality of Yahweh.

I never said “legally incapable”. What I said was “easily or practically release them”.
As for an example of a person who found themselves in such a bind…Thomas Jefferson was one.
While on the one hand he did not feel that owning slaves was right, his entire life and personal economy was built on the slave system.
He was like the rich young man in the Gospel who was too attached to his possessions, his lifestyle etc.

JRKH, that’s a very fair point, as I put words in your mouth. I do have to make a point with the scenario you brought up earlier where if it would be difficult (possibly for economic reasons) to drop one’s slaves that the owner would use The Golden Rule to treat the slaves kindly and fairly. While that is preferable to a slave owner who beats his slaves, it would be a very skewed view of The Golden Rule. It’s analagous to hoping that a pimp only sends his prostitutes to work the streets and hoping that he doesn’t beat them as well.

I am a great admirer of Thomas Jefferson yet I can never forgive him or ignore the fact that he owned slaves.

No it does not. This raises a whole host of other questions, and likewise relies on other assumptions.

CaptBell800, I’m going to ask that you tell me which questions this raises and which assumptions I’m making.

 

[gerryconnor]

I’m in a discussion with someone and the topic of slavery came up, and they were asking if it is immoral (he was implying that God condoned,supported,agree, etc, with slavery in the Bible).

In response to someone else’s statement, I brought up the fact that divorce was allowed by God and regulated by God, but that does not mean he believed it to be morally good.

A reply to this was that they believe he does accept it as morally good, and used James 4:17 to back up this claim.

17 “Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin.” (James 4:17)

Their claim is that God knew that it was the right thing to completely outlaw slavery, but He chose not to, so God either approves of it, or He sinned.

It’s not that I agree with this, or feel it may be right, but I’m not sure how I can prove this wrong.

Any suggestions on a good response to this ?

Thanks in advance!

I think your friend has a point. The Church hasn’t been consistent when it comes to the question of slavery and, if it reflects God’s will, then …

Pope Pius X signed his name to these words, “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.” And that was more than thirty years after the death of Wilberforce, and after the American Civil War had already consigned slavery to history in the United States

 

[CaptBell800]

CaptBell800, I’m going to ask that you tell me which questions this raises and which assumptions I’m making.

Some questions this would bring up:

1. What is your definition of empathy?
2. What is your definition of suffering?
3. If one feels no empathy for another, why are they bound to behave as if they did?
4. Why are rights granted by the presence of empathy?
5. Which rights, specifically, are granted through empathy?

Some assumptions made, assuming that your definition of empathy is what I believe it to be:

1. It is better for a human to be alive than dead.
2. It is better for a human to be emotionally and physically comfortable than otherwise.
3. Empathy is the best means of achieving emotional and physical comfort.
4. There are no binding moral codes other than those presented by empathy.
5. Ideas of empathy are universal and identical

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents::

The commandments have as their foundation, love. This is God’s essential nature. In loving Him totally and loving ourselves and others, we come ever closer to the Ground of reality.

Morality, as I understand it, describes ways in which we can act righteously, thus allowing us to discover within us that which is not love and hopefully become righteous.

There is no indication, that I can see, that scripture was meant to be an outline of how to organize society other than as part of God’s church, in which we are all slaves to Him and each other.

Questions regarding such topics as “God’s Morality”, I understand as questioning scripture, how God is described and understood. It actually does make sense, but what is needed is an understanding of the whole. Where does one start? I suppose, if one is in doubt about God’s love, one would do well to refer to the beatitudes and recall Christ’s sacrifice. Instead of leaving this as another issue for debate, why not try to actually know Him; if you want to, with His grace, you will.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Some questions this would bring up:

1. What is your definition of empathy?

I don’t think there are a range of definitions for empathy. It’s one’s ability to gauge and understand why a person would feel or think a certain way based on that person’s situation.

1. What is your definition of suffering?

It’s pain, whether or emotional or physical experienced by someone. I would agree that something that one person might consider suffering another person might not.

1. If one feels no empathy for another, why are they bound to behave as if they did?

Because there may come a time where I am in a situation where a person may not be able to intellectually comprehend my plight, yet I would hope they would act as if they could. We have to help each other as best we can including those times where empathy lacks.

Let’s take the example of a battered wife who refuses to leave her husband. As a man who grew up in a loving household I can’t logically fathom why one would stay in such a position. But my dad spent several decades working in family services (mostly children) so I understand that these situations are quite real. I can sympathize but not empathize, and if a friend was in a situation like that I’d do whatever it takes to help, even my brain can only think, “Just leave him!”

1. Why are rights granted by the presence of empathy?

To be able to place oneself in another’s shoes is critical in gauging the extent of which rights are needed and how far they need to go. I’d hate to live in a society created by one or more people devoid of empathy. Empathy is by no means the only tool to determine rights but it’s an essential tool.

1. Which rights, specifically, are granted through empathy?

Solely through empathy? Probably none. But the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” don’t come into play without it.

Some assumptions made, assuming that your definition of empathy is what I believe it to be:

1. It is better for a human to be alive than dead.

Since the topic at hand is slavery, I take it what you really want to state is that I’m assuming it’s better to be a living slave than a free dead man. This assumes that a slaveowner has but two options. Pity the poor slaveowner for he is unable to simply hire someone or set him free! Woe to the landholder who must pay wages for his workers instead of buying the daughters of poor men!

1. It is better for a human to be emotionally and physically comfortable than otherwise.

With all other factors being equal, then yes.

1. Empathy is the best means of achieving emotional and physical comfort.

If you mean the empathy of party A on party B is the best means of achieving emotional and physical comfort for party B, it’s possibly the best means. It’s almost certainly the best means to keep party A from unnecessarily eradicating the emotional and physical comfort of party B.

1. There are no binding moral codes other than those presented by empathy.

I would not assume that, but I’d be curious what moral codes contradict those presented by empathy.

1. Ideas of empathy are universal and identical

Again, empathy is not something that varies from culture to culture. It’s the ability to understand the situation of another. It’s true that it may be harder from some cultures to empathize with another, but the term doesn’t mean different things to different people.