'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

[Mike_from_NJ]

Atheists can be some of the most moral people.

But when it comes to providing apologia for their morality, they don’t have a foundation. And they certainly have no foundation when it comes to trying to dissuade someone else from their (immoral) views.

I’ve already shown where non-believers views come from sociologically, historically, empathically, and genetically. It’s a strong foundation that grows stronger the more we learn. Do you want take a try and the questions I asked earlier:

1. What does one do when a deity is said to have committed acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from believing such an entity is deciding what is right and wrong how can one speak out against that deity’s immoral actions?
2. What does one do when a religious group has committed acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from a deity and the religious group in question is said to be the proper point of interpretation for that deity’s wishes how can one speak out against that group’s immoral actions?

Take this parallel:
Someone who’s never taken a Calculus class may still be one of the best mathematicians intuitively.

She knows the answer because she intuitively understands the concept of change over time.

But when someone comes up with an answer different from her own, she won’t have the foundation to state, “Your answer is wrong”. When the person says, “Why is it wrong?” All she can say is, “It just is. I just know that the correct answer is C, not B”. But the other person simply has to say, “Well, I just know that
the correct answer is B, not C.”

And then she’s stuck.

The problem with your analogy is that it’s completely backwards. The equivalent to Christianity in that set up is that someone in the past who may or may not have existed wrote a series of answers to several different calculus problems. Atheists and other people not devoted to this ancient calculus textbook have developed methods to find the right answers. When a certain algorithm doesn’t work, it gets tossed aside. Even better, atheists can show where more than a few answers in the mystical ancient calculus textbook are wrong. Atheists can show their work on the calculus test, while Christians point to an old calculus book but get mad when you point out certain parts of the book are inaccurate. It’s there where the christian student is stuck.

Perhaps if you were on a forum with fundamentalist Christians your objection would be valid.

But you ought to keep in mind that you are on a Catholic forum. Speaking with knowledgeable Catholics. As such, you would need to provide a document from the magisterium which states, “Treat slaves like property”.

We interpret the Scriptures through the lens of the Church, not through our own private interpretations. Thus, it’s inutile to take quotes from the Bible and say, “Catholics believe [A] because it’s right there in the Bible!”

Last part first, I don’t think the willingness of a church or its followers to ignore contradictory evidence is a shining example of morality. There are at least two passages in the Bible where slaves are called property: Exodus 21:21 and Leviticus 25:44-46. Both of those instances are quotes from God as he is said to be speaking to Moses. The Church and its followers will state proudly that the Bible is true, and will note that the Bible is true although in some instance its truth is figurative. How can a quote be figurative, especially quotes that are in the middle of larger quotes concerning rules and regulations? No one ever says the parts in Exodus 21 about laws concerning not covering a pit and an ox falling in as figurative. No one ever says the part of Leviticus 25 about the right of redemption for buying sold property for one year is figurative. Yet when it comes to the verses about slaves being property, the calls of figurative meaning become plentiful. What’s more there is no figurative meaning, no scriptural lens, that keeps God from being portrayed in a poor light. If God doesn’t really mean that slaves are property when he’s allegedly quoted twice as saying just that, then what is the proper meaning for those passages? Why evidence do we have that this proper meaning is the right one?

First part last, besides the Bible (which again the Church says is true) we can look to Dum Diversas, a papal bull issued by Nicholas V in 1452. It states:

We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.

Note that this doesn’t limit who can be subjugated by location. Note it doesn’t limit the time when they could be subjugated nor when such subjugation would end. Note it doesn’t limit who can be subjugated apart from stating that any non-believer in Christ could be subjugated.
{continued in next post}

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

{continued from previous post}

And any lawyer will tell you that often the most telling words are the ones not written or spoken. When Spain and Portugal brought their armies into the new world they claim they were doing it at least in part to spread the message of the Gospel. They would carry priests with them to handle that part while doing what conquistadors do best. Whenever the question of Dum Diversas comes up and specifically how it eliminated any moral qualms about the actions in the Western Hemisphere, there will always be those who say that the Church did not allow such things. Yet for years there was no document from the Church proper that denounced these actions despite claims by the armies of doing it for the faith and despite carrying official representatives of the Church (the priests) to help carry out these acts. Decades later in 1537, Paul III issued Sublimus Dei stating the American Indians were not to be enslaved and their property not taken That was repealed a year later in Non Indecens Videtur because it angered Spain (as they claimed it impeded their right to conquest). So the pope tried to stop a portion of slavery (not in Africa and Asia) then backed down a year later, showing that the Church’s stance on enslaving the natives of the West was perfectly ok as well as non-believers everywhere.

Besides all that, we know that the Church as well as the popes owned Muslim slaves for centuries in plain view. Actions do speak louder than words.

Only with the issuing of Vatican II did the Church say that slavery was wrong in all ways. They were in existence for over 17 centuries before the United States became an independent nation and denounced slavery over a century after the United States did.

Can you give an example of how being a believer–specifically, a Catholic–can hinder one’s morality?

Well there’s an interesting topic on CAF here about a young girl who was strapped to a bed and forced to endure 13 separate exorcisms by a priest because they thought she was demon possessed (instead of what she actually was, anorexic).

We can take a look at the people involved with the theft of children in Spain for decades, both the vocations and laity. If you’re not familiar with it there was an ongoing process where mothers/families deemed unworthy would be told that their newborn died, but then they would pass on the child to another family. Priests and nuns and doctors worked together to get this done and it lasted into the nineties. Those who joined the process had to be convinced that what they were doing was right in part by those priests and nuns.

But it’s not just that scandal. Any situation, big or small, where the Church participated and/or initiated immoral acts needed Catholics to believe that what’s being done is moral.

It sounds like you’re saying that these “moral” traits which the evolutionary process developed for us are merely “helpful” for us as a species? Is that your position? These moral traits are not commandments or obligations. They are simply things we do which are helpful for the species to thrive, yes?

Obviously I wouldn’t use the word commandment because that indicates it was handed down from an intelligent entity. I might call them obligations in both a genetic sense and in a societal sense. Genetically one must be able to live with one’s actions. Internally one may do or not do an action based on one’s conscience – a set of moral obligations that define us. When someone is missing that moral barometer or has one that could endanger those of his tribe/species, then that’s where societal obligations come into play. Those are the external forces that we apply to one another to maintain the species. And similar to what I described before, these societal obligations are not limited to humans.

And why are sociopathic tendencies “ingrained in most of us”?

I completely botched up that sentence. I was trying to say that the first part (promoting the safety of one’s fellow man) is ingrained in us but because I’m an idiot I placed it after the second part about sociopathic tendencies.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Then how does abortion factor into an atheists morality system. Most such systems that I have seen do, in fact, dehumanize what is biologically a human.

There is no singular “Atheist’s moral philosophy”. Those who support the choice of abortion would not compare a potential future human with an actual living and breathing human. It’s tricky (easily one of the most divisive ethical subjects out there) and it’s not as clearcut as when something like when a certain group who shall remain nameless decided the Waldensians did not have the same worth as those who possessed a certain more popular faith. By the way you might be surprised that the are atheists against abortion.

This is as good a place as any to ask if you can answer the flip side of the types of questions you’re asking me:

1. What does one do when a deity is said to have committed acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from believing such an entity is deciding what is right and wrong how can one speak out against that deity’s immoral actions?
2. What does one do when a religious group has committed acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from a deity and the religious group in question is said to be the proper point of interpretation for that deity’s wishes how can one speak out against that group’s immoral actions?

But even that is, by definition, an arbitrary distinction. For example, Nietzsche (an atheist) considered the primary driver of humans was the will to power ( a desire to have the power to achieve our desires). The types of morality you are discussing, compassion and consideration of others, was rejected by Nietzsche as a falsehood perpetrated by the weak on the strong. The strong ( the Übermenschen) had an obligation to break free of those bonds to achevie their ambitions.

Several times now I’ve explained how a non-religious basis for morality can be derived by several principles, most importantly taking into account the wants and needs of others. Your response is to give an example of a worldview that is the exact opposite, then somehow claimed that this negates the basis that I described.

So, what you claim certainly is not universal to atheists (and we won’t even discuss Pol Pot or Che Guervera)

Correct. I also never claimed that it would be universal. Atheism is simply a belief that there are no gods, or at the very least we have no evidence that gods exist. As I mentioned before there are good and bad atheists just as there are good and bad Christians (whether it be the Anglican denomination, the Catholic denomination, or whatever denomination). There is no one set rule for atheists, but this is in response to Crazy Phil and his misguided belief that it is impossible for any atheist to have a moral foundation that could say that rape is wrong.

Each viewed what they were doing as a ‘good’, that their actions were ‘good’ and others ‘evil’.

But they choose different criteria to measure their actions. What makes your choice objectively superior, as opposed to being a personal choice.

Again, your example is predicated on not considering the feelings of others. The god of the Bible does this when comparing Israelites to gentiles. The Americans did this when taking over the lands of the native peoples. Christians, atheists, and other non-Muslims are treated as not worthy of basic kindness and rights in numerous places in the Middle East. There’s hardly a group that hasn’t been a victim of this type of thinking. Religions and non-religious have been the targets of such scorn as well as the perpetrators. To claim that any one such group has been immune to that is laughable.

What happened to Terry Shivo then, how does that factor into such an Atheist’s moral philosophy.

Or Downs children who are aborted.

Again, there is no singular “Atheist’s moral philosophy”. Depending on who you ask there are some (myself included) who would not equate removing the feeding tube from Terry Schiavo with the extermination of a living breathing thinking person (gay in your example).

As far as children with Downs Syndrome, I already went over abortion above. Some (myself included) would not equate aborting a fetus with Downs with the extermination of a living person. As I noted, other atheists would disagree with me and some would be completely on board with you.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve already shown where non-believers views come from sociologically, historically, empathically, and genetically. It’s a strong foundation that grows stronger the more we learn.

But it’s not an obligation to never murder. It’s just something we’ve learned? Is that your point?

It’s not an obligation to never take another man’s property. We just have learned that it’s a good thing to live by?

Do you want take a try and the questions I asked earlier:

Sure.

1. What does one do when a deity is said to have committed acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from believing such an entity is deciding what is right and wrong how can one speak out against that deity’s immoral actions?

That’s a nonsensical question, Mike. Because of the nature of God he cannot commit immoral acts.

That’s like asking, “What would you do if you discovered a married bachelor?” Or “How would you react to a square circle?”

1. What does one do when a religious group has committed acts that are clearly immoral? If morality can only come from a deity and the religious group in question is said to be the proper point of interpretation for that deity’s wishes how can one speak out against that group’s immoral actions?

We use the morality given to us by God called natural law, which is infused into the hearts of every human creature.

Thus, if one religious group says that it’s moral to call homosexuals evil and that their deity has told them so, we say, “You are wrong and your deity is evil.”

 

[PRmerger]

The problem with your analogy is that it’s completely backwards. The equivalent to Christianity in that set up is that someone in the past who may or may not have existed wrote a series of answers to several different calculus problems. Atheists and other people not devoted to this ancient calculus textbook have developed methods to find the right answers. When a certain algorithm doesn’t work, it gets tossed aside. Even better, atheists can show where more than a few answers in the mystical ancient calculus textbook are wrong. Atheists can show their work on the calculus test,** while Christians point to an old calculus book **but get mad when you point out certain parts of the book are inaccurate. It’s there where the christian student is stuck.

I think you keep forgetting that you are on a Catholic forum, Mike.

Or perhaps you are very uninformed about Catholicism?

For Catholics do not get their morality from a book. As our Catechism says, we are not a religion of the book.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Thus to say that Catholics “point to” the Bible as their source of morality is to demonstrate one’s ignorance of Catholic morality. We have never claimed that the Bible is our rule book. We don’t profess that our morals come from the Bible

Regarding the inaccuracies, again, if you were talking to some fundamentalist Christians perhaps your objection would be valid.

But we Catholics don’t take the Bible in a literalist manner. We understand it through the lens of the Church which gave us this Bible.

So, for example, when you say that Christianity professes to treat slaves like property, you need to provide a document from our magisterium which states that. Can you do that?

 

[Mulligan2]

It seems like Phil Robertson has never met a non-believer or at the very least spoken to one. If he did he could have asked where he or she gets his morality from. He might find it hard to believe that one can have a moral basis apart from his version of his particular god, but it’s true. He’d also learn that one advantage of not being tied to a certain deity’s version or morality is when that version comes in conflict with common sense.

And Phil isn’t the only one who makes the assertion that only Jesus can keep one from becomes a rapist or murderer. Apologists like Eric Hovind do it to.

What makes Phil’s outburst so unique is that he doubled down on the stupidity and the grossness. Usually it’s phrased from the apologist’s perspective, “If I didn’t have Jesus in my life there would be nothing to keep me from doing all sorts of horrible things.” Phil starts off with this vile scenario and then seems to suggest that an athiest who was a victim of this detailed Robertsonian storyline would have to accept it because he doesn’t have Jesus in his life. It’s all pretty disgusting.

From my experience your post is 100% correct. The atheists I know are all upstanding members of society and are very ethical and moral in their business dealings. As a Catholic, I am always disappointed when atheists are looked down upon as immoral, when I know that is the opposite of reality.

 

[PRmerger]

Last part first, I don’t think the willingness of a church or its followers to ignore contradictory evidence is a shining example of morality.

Understood.

But there are no contradictory doctrines in the Bible.

There are at least two passages in the Bible where slaves are called property: Exodus 21:21 and Leviticus 25:44-46. Both of those instances are quotes from God as he is said to be speaking to Moses.

Yes. They were viewed as property in the OT times.

The Church and its followers will state proudly that the Bible is true, and will note that the Bible is true although in some instance its truth is figurative. How can a quote be figurative, especially quotes that are in the middle of larger quotes concerning rules and regulations?

No one is denying that the OT peoples viewed slaves as property.

What you are erroneous about is that this translates to: therefore the Catholic Church views slaves as property.

No one ever says the parts in Exodus 21 about laws concerning not covering a pit and an ox falling in as figurative.

You are correct.

And no one has ever said that slaves viewed as property in the OT is a figurative reading. They were viewed as property.

No one ever says the part of Leviticus 25 about the right of redemption for buying sold property for one year is figurative. Yet when it comes to the verses about slaves being property, the calls of figurative meaning become plentiful.

Have you been in dialogue with a Catholic here who says that slaves being property is figurative? I know I haven’t seen that.

What’s more there is no figurative meaning, no scriptural lens, that keeps God from being portrayed in a poor light. If God doesn’t really mean that slaves are property when he’s allegedly quoted twice as saying just that, then what is the proper meaning for those passages? Why evidence do we have that this proper meaning is the right one?

Already addressed above.

 

[PRmerger]

First part last, besides the Bible (which again the Church says is true) we can look to Dum Diversas, a papal bull issued by Nicholas V in 1452. It states:

Can you post a link to the full text in English please?

 

[PRmerger]

Besides all that, we know that the Church as well as the popes owned Muslim slaves for centuries in plain view. Actions do speak louder than words.

I think it’s a mistake to view the abuses of men for the teaching of the Church.

*Abusus non tollit usum.
*

Only with the issuing of Vatican II did the Church say that slavery was wrong in all ways.

Absolutely INCORRECT.

Pope Paul III demanded that Christians stop enslaving Indians in Sublimus Dei.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved;

Also, Pope Eugene issued a papal bull, Sicut Dudum, which condemned the enslavement of the people of the Canary Islands, off the coast of Africa.

And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.

 

[PRmerger]

Well there’s an interesting topic on CAF here about a young girl who was strapped to a bed and forced to endure 13 separate exorcisms by a priest because they thought she was demon possessed (instead of what she actually was, anorexic).

That is indeed interesting.

But whose morality was hindered? The anorexic girl?
Or the mistaken exorcist?

We can take a look at the people involved with the theft of children in Spain for decades, both the vocations and laity. If you’re not familiar with it there was an ongoing process where mothers/families deemed unworthy would be told that their newborn died, but then they would pass on the child to another family. Priests and nuns and doctors worked together to get this done and it lasted into the nineties. Those who joined the process had to be convinced that what they were doing was right in part by those priests and nuns.

I think you are giving examples of people who did NOT follow the precepts of their faith, but rather enacted their own vile agendas in the name of the Church.

But it’s not just that scandal. Any situation, big or small, where the Church participated and/or initiated immoral acts needed Catholics to believe that what’s being done is moral.

I could say the same about atheistic regimes, though, too, right?

 

[PRmerger]

Obviously I wouldn’t use the word commandment because that indicates it was handed down from an intelligent entity. I might call them obligations in both a genetic sense and in a societal sense. Genetically one must be able to live with one’s actions.

So genetically it’s immoral to give your life for a stranger?

Did St. Maximilian Kolbe act against his genetic obligation by offering up his life for a complete stranger? It was an immoral act?

Internally one may do or not do an action based on one’s conscience – a set of moral obligations that define us. When someone is missing that moral barometer or has one that could endanger those of his tribe/species, then that’s where societal obligations come into play. Those are the external forces that we apply to one another to maintain the species. And similar to what I described before, these societal obligations are not limited to humans.

So you are saying that there are some shoulds and some shouldn’ts in our moral code?

Some moral imperatives?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I completely disagree. There is no reason to couch one’s moral barometer in terms of a god.

It’s as I described in an earlier post, it’s because of how we as a species developed. Those traits that lead us to promote the safety of our fellow man and to weed out those with sociopathic tendencies is ingrained in most of us.

Compassion is in our DNA. The golden rule (which is not exclusive to Christianity) helps pass on the genes to propagate the species. You’re trying to make it seem that there is an order beyond the natural growth of humanity, and that this supposed order MUST be divinely put into motion. I see no evidence of that.

If not reasonable to appeal to a “god” then why are you appealing to the substitute barometer of “humanness”? You do not show cause for this doctrine of yours.

Without establishing why humanness is a valued barometer for morality, your assertions are simply gratuitous, are they not? And I say this as someone who agrees that proper morality is derivable by examining the human condition - many of us just call this the “natural law.” But I think your argument is lacking cause for using “humanness” as a barometer of any kind.

Who cares how a species developed? What difference does it make if the species is propagated? Again, what cause have we to use your barometers as moral measures?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But it’s not an obligation to never murder. It’s just something we’ve learned? Is that your point?

It’s not an obligation to never take another man’s property. We just have learned that it’s a good thing to live by?

It’s more than just a good thing. Making sure kids eat a healthy breakfast is a good thing, but if it doesn’t happen society doesn’t weaken. If we allow murder it impacts us to the core. We have imperatives within ourselves and from others in our circle to prevent murder from occurring.

That’s a nonsensical question, Mike. Because of the nature of God he cannot commit immoral acts.

That’s like asking, “What would you do if you discovered a married bachelor?” Or “How would you react to a square circle?”

There are two ways that “Because of the nature of God he cannot commit immoral acts.” can be defined. One is to say that there are moral acts and immoral acts and God is incapable of doing the immoral acts. Two is to say that God does what he does and it’s not immoral if he does it (a sort of “might makes right” or “do as I say not as I do” theory). If you follow the latter, then God is a lawmaker above his own law. If it’s the former then we’d have to show God performing an immoral act. We CAN’T just say God can’t commit immoral acts by fiat.

It doesn’t take much searching to find God performing immoral acts. I know I’ve mentioned this movie in a recent post on another topic but it bears bringing up again. There was a movie on PBS called “God On Trial”. It was based on a (possibly apocrophyl) story be Elie Weisel where a set of Jews in a Nazi concentration camp put God on trial for breaking the covenant he had with his people. The part that speaks to me is near the end where a Rabbi makes some references to certain acts in the Torah/Bible. If you’re interested the whole thing is on YouTube with the whole thing here. The part I’m quoting from is here.

Rabbi: After Saul there came David who took Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite to himself after arranging to have Uriah killed – against the wishes of God. Did God strike David for this?

Scholar: In a manner of speaking…

Rabbi: Did he strike Bathsheba?

Scholar: In the sense that when they had…

Rabbi: Adonai said, since you have sinned against me, the child will die. (Turning to the judge) You asked earlier, who would punish a child? God does.

Rabbi: Now did the child die suddenly, mercifully, without pain?

Scholar: In a…

Rabbi: Seven days. Seven days that child spent dying in pain while David wrapped himself in sack and ashes and fasted and sought to show his sorrow to God. Did God listen?

Scholar: The child died.

Rabbi: Did that child find that God was just?

{later in the scene…}

Rabbi: When he asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham should have said no. We should have taught our God the justice that was in our hearts. We should have stood up to him. He is not good. He has simply been strong. He has simply been on our side.

We use the morality given to us by God called natural law, which is infused into the hearts of every human creature.

Thus, if one religious group says that it’s moral to call homosexuals evil and that their deity has told them so, we say, “You are wrong and your deity is evil.”

Leviticus 20:13 (a direct quote from God): “'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Pope Nicholas V allowed the Roman Inquisition to prosecute men who practiced sodomy. They were handed over to the civil authorities and often burned. (Please don’t try to pardon the church for such actions because they didn’t do the actual burning. Many noble priests and nuns hid Jews from Nazi authorities to protect them from unjust laws.)

So with the deity calling homosexuality evil and the Church leading homosexuals to their deaths would you then say, “You are wrong and your deity is evil.”?

I think you keep forgetting that you are on a Catholic forum, Mike.

Or perhaps you are very uninformed about Catholicism?

For Catholics do not get their morality from a book. As our Catechism says, we are not a religion of the book.

I’m quite well versed in Catholicism. I grew up in it. I’ve also been on this board for a few years picking up more than a few things.

You’re right in that the Catholic Church states it is not the religion of the book, but it does state that the Bible is true and comes from God. According to the Catechism each passage in the Bible is either true in a literal sense or in a spiritual sense (which then breaks down into either the allegorical, moral, and anagogical sense). The problem is that too often when someone points out a passage that shows God in a horrible light the response is that it’s not literal, but then few if any will give detail as to its spiritual sense. On the off chance they do, often that spiritual reading runs completely opposite of its literal reading, doesn’t make sense in the context of the surrounding passages, doesn’t give a reason why one should choose to read it in that spiritual sense instead of its literal sense, or still shows God in a horrible light.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Thus to say that Catholics “point to” the Bible as their source of morality is to demonstrate one’s ignorance of Catholic morality. We have never claimed that the Bible is our rule book. We don’t profess that our morals come from the Bible

Regarding the inaccuracies, again, if you were talking to some fundamentalist Christians perhaps your objection would be valid.

But we Catholics don’t take the Bible in a literalist manner. We understand it through the lens of the Church which gave us this Bible.

This is what I’m talking about. You can’t just say that something is not literal and then that’s that. You have to explain how it’s not literal and it has to make sense.

The thing is there is more than one way to interpret a biblical passage as non-literal. For example in the synoptic gospels Jesus tells of a day where all these amazing things will happen for everyone to see and Jesus will return in the clouds. The catch is that he repeatedly said that it will happen in “this generation”. Now it clearly did not happen in a literal sense. For some (including the Catholic Church) the way it’s described is that those things occurred spirituality, and it’s likely you already know that this is preterism. You likely also know that there are many different forms of preterism and can conflict. Another explanation for that passage is that the events described are real but that the term “this generation” is figurative. Those people are futurists, and like preterism there are different stripes of futurism.

What I’m getting at is saying a passage in the Bible is not literal is only the first step. You need to explain what its specific spiritual sense is and it has to jibe with its context and it must show why that reading is preferred over a literal one. What is the figurative meaning of the two points in the Bible where God is quoted as saying that slaves are property? Can a spiritual meaning be 180 degrees different than it’s literal meaning? Can it be done without showing that God is immoral?

So, for example, when you say that Christianity professes to treat slaves like property, you need to provide a document from our magisterium which states that. Can you do that?

Can I do that? I already did. I gave you Dum Diveras. Here are a few more from a pretty good Wikipedia article:

• The Council of Gangra (340AD) anathematized anyone who taught that it was permissible for a slave to withdraw his services from the master who owned him on religious grounds. This decree became part of the Western Church’s collections of canons for quoted during the following 1,400 years.
• In 419 the Council of Carthage decreed that not even an enfranchised slave could give evidence in a court of law.
• The Council of Agde in 506AD decreed that Bishops could not sell slaves owned by the Church.
• In 517AD the Council of Jena decreed that slaves bestowed on monastic orders could not be emancipated.
• The Council of Orleans in 541AD decreed that slaves who were emancipated by a Bishop would be allowed to remain free so long as they remained in the service of the Church.
• In 633AD it was decreed by the 4th Council of Toledo that women who were having “forbidden relationships” with clerics were to be put up for sale as slaves and that the clerics do penance.
• The 9th Council of Toledo in 655AD decreed that the penalty of enslavement was not to be applied to priests who offended against the clerical celibacy rules but rather their children who would thereafter be forever slaves of the Church. This decree became part of the collection of Canons of the Western Church.
• In 817AD the Council of Aachen used a previous teaching of St. Isidore of Seville to affirm the justice of enslavement. The Council of Pavia in 1012AD enacted a similar decree but in addition included those children who were born of free women.
• Pope Urban II in 1089 at the Synod of Melfi granted to princes the power to enslave the wives of clerics in order to enforce clerical celibacy.
• The 3rd General Council of the Lateran (1179AD) decreed the penalty of enslavement on any Christian who provided material aid to for the repair of Saracen ships or provided navigational assistance. This penalty was subsequently repeated at three other General Councils. The same Council decreed enslavement as a penalty for anyone involved with brigandage in the Pyrenees.

There sure are a lot of popes and bishops who were eager to enslave people.

Understood.

But there are no contradictory doctrines in the Bible.

So be kind to people but you can beat your slave to death (so long as it doesn’t die the same day) is fine because the slave is property. You’re indicating those rules laid out directly from God himself, are not misquotes, and are not contradictory?

Yes. They were viewed as property in the OT times.

Because Jehovah said so.

No one is denying that the OT peoples viewed slaves as property.

Adonia himself gave a directive to his people stating as much.

What you are erroneous about is that this translates to: therefore the Catholic Church views slaves as property.

So God is wrong when he’s quoted as saying that twice? In a conflict between God and Church, who wins?

And no one has ever said that slaves viewed as property in the OT is a figurative reading. They were viewed as property.

Because Yahweh declared it so.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Have you been in dialogue with a Catholic here who says that slaves being property is figurative? I know I haven’t seen that.

No, but I’m trying to make you understand that since it’s not figurative language then we have to consider what that means.

It is wrong to treat people like property, correct?

The passages in the Bible are 1) literally true, 2) figuratively true, or 3) not true. Based upon what I quoted earlier from the catechism, option 3 is not a valid choice so a believer must choose 1 or 2. You yourself are saying that 2) is not a valid choice, which means that believers say that the passages in which God himself calls slaves property is true. So when you’ve asked me what document shows that God and the church say that slaves are considered property, the answer is the Bible.

Since we can’t try to fudge the meaning of words like so much apologetics tries to do, then we agree that God is telling people to be immoral, which shows that there are problems that can occur with a religiously-based morality.

Can you post a link to the full text in English please?

Here you go: English translation of Dum Diversas

I think it’s a mistake to view the abuses of men for the teaching of the Church.

Abusus non tollit usum.

So for centuries not only did the popes own slaves but the Church as an organization held slaves. They told kings to take slaves for the good of the faith. And somehow this does not reflect on the teaching of the Church?

Only with the issuing of Vatican II did the Church say that slavery was wrong in all ways.

Absolutely INCORRECT. Pope Paul III demanded that Christians stop enslaving Indians in Sublimus Dei.

Maybe you missed it in my earlier post, but I specifically mentioned Sublimus Dei:

Decades later in 1537, Paul III issued Sublimus Dei stating the American Indians were not to be enslaved and their property not taken That was repealed a year later in Non Indecens Videtur because it angered Spain (as they claimed it impeded their right to conquest). So the pope tried to stop a portion of slavery (not in Africa and Asia) then backed down a year later, showing that the Church’s stance on enslaving the natives of the West was perfectly ok as well as non-believers everywhere.

That’s right. The Pope releases a papal bull saying don’t enslave this group of people (as opposed to saying don’t enslave anybody). Then a year later it backs down and completely rescinds it. But then we have,

Also, Pope Eugene issued a papal bull, Sicut Dudum, which condemned the enslavement of the people of the Canary Islands, off the coast of Africa.

Again we see a pope calling off/denouncing a portion of slavery as opposed to slavery in general (which as my earlier point stated wasn’t done by the Church until Vatican II). And why was Pope Eguene IV against slavery in the Canary Islands? Because many of them were becoming Catholics. Still then according to this article, Eugene issue a papal bull amending Sicut Dudum to allow King Dulce of Portugal to continue conquering those portions of the Canary Islands not converted and that the protection granted in Sicut Dudum did not protect non-christians. We can even see a glimpse of that in the last line that you quoted from the initial bull:

We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.

Twice a pope tried to limit slavery in a small way (not completely) and twice the pope and the Church backed down due to a king from the Iberian Peninsula. This is the moral foundation that non-believers lack.

So, no, my statement “Only with the issuing of Vatican II did the Church say that slavery was wrong in all ways.” was not “absolutely INCORRECT”. It was on-the-nose.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That is indeed interesting.

But whose morality was hindered? The anorexic girl? Or the mistaken exorcist?

A good start would be the priest who performed the exorcisms. Having that Catholic faith led him to believe that demons existed and to misidentify the girl’s problem. That same faith convinced him he had an obligation to tie down a young girl to perform repeated cruel and unnecessary ceremonies. Assuming that this priest got approval from his superiors in the church, their faith led them to wrongly allow this priest to perform those ceremonies. The faith of the parents led them to work with the priest and allow him to do what he did to that girl. This isn’t a blanket knock on the Catholic faith. As I may have mentioned before my family is Catholic and many of my friends are Catholic, and they have gotten strength from their faith. But it would require willful blindness to ignore the great number of times where faith (not just Catholic) has caused people to justify, perform, or allow immoral acts.

I think you are giving examples of people who did NOT follow the precepts of their faith, but rather enacted their own vile agendas in the name of the Church.

It’s funny how when a person in the Church’s history does something good (e.g. Georges Lemaître) the Church will do everything in its power to associate themselves with him or her, but then something terrible happens and they are on their own vile agendas (often without a peep from the Church). Here’s another one: Sanal Endamaruku, a famous Inidan skeptic, was asked to investigate an alleged miracle occuring on a crucifix on a church in Mumbai. Water was dripping from the feet of the status and the villagers were drinking the water in the belief that it could heal them. He checked and saw that there was a water from restroom and through capillary action went across and onto the crucifix where it dripped down to the feet. The people were drinking toilet water. The Catholic Church in Mumbai filed charges against Sanal via India’s blasphemy law. The Archbishop of Mumbai tried to bargain a deal with Sanal so that he would apologize in return for getting the charges dropped (which come with indefinite jail time). What morality is the Church in Mumbia using? What morality is the Archbishop using? What morality is the church proper using in not telling the church in Mumbai for the past 3 years to have the charges dropped despite Sanal having done nothing wrong? The Church’s silence speaks volumes.

I could say the same about atheistic regimes, though, too, right?

Absolutely, although those regimes were communistic and I’m a capitalist. But yes a person can get caught up in dogma, doctrine, beliefs that can lead to immorality. Remember the argument that’s been presented to me is that atheists have a moral foundation whereas religious people can. I’m showing quite clearly that such confidence in religious moral foundations have faltered time and time and time and time and time and time again. At the very least an atheist can question whether what they do is moral without getting past the barrier that comes from when an immoral act is called for by a supernatural deity or its claimed representatives on earth.

So genetically it’s immoral to give your life for a stranger?

Did St. Maximilian Kolbe act against his genetic obligation by offering up his life for a complete stranger? It was an immoral act?

Come on, let’s not be obtuse now. All I’ve been saying this thread is morality comes from taking into consideration the wants and needs of others. If such consideration leads to sacrificing oneself for others then all the more power to him or her.

So you are saying that there are some shoulds and some shouldn’ts in our moral code?

Some moral imperatives?

I sense that you’re trying to go the Ravi Zacharias route with his “If there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver”. If that is where you’re going, don’t bother. Our sense of right and wrong developed naturally (not through any guided process) and has developed into how we interact with ourselves and each other in both a concious and subconcious way.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If not reasonable to appeal to a “god” then why are you appealing to the substitute barometer of “humanness”? You do not show cause for this doctrine of yours.

Without establishing why humanness is a valued barometer for morality, your assertions are simply gratuitous, are they not? And I say this as someone who agrees that proper morality is derivable by examining the human condition - many of us just call this the “natural law.” But I think your argument is lacking cause for using “humanness” as a barometer of any kind.

Assuming we don’t get into philosophic navel-gazing, I can show that humans exist. Every action we do, good or bad, is based on our humanity (both the internal of ourselves and the external of other humans). There is no need to add this superfluous layer called God to explain our morality, especially when it’s unseen, untestable, and as I’ve shown in my conversation with PRMerger one that can be as flawed as relying solely on a naturalistic moral groundwork.

Who cares how a species developed? What difference does it make if the species is propagated? Again, what cause have we to use your barometers as moral measures?

Let’s plop a species into existence just like ours but with a directive to sacrifice any and all children (we’ll call it the Abraham-Jephthah gene). It doesn’t last and ceases to be within a few years. Now let’s plop a species into existence that not only seeks to care for its own children but other children that aren’t direct descendants. That species has a much better chance of survival. The more cooperative qualities that the species has the better chance it has to survive and thrive. These traits become genetically selective and as that species develops more cognitive abilities becomes a natural part of its makeup.

A pirhana that doesn’t work with the others isn’t going to survive very long. Nature selects those pirhana who instinctively work in cooperation with other pirhana. It’s in its DNA,

Doesn’t that make a lot more sense in so many regards than a god who claims to be the essence of good but then sends two bears to kill dozens of mocking kids?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Let’s plop a species into existence just like ours but with a directive to sacrifice any and all children (we’ll call it the Abraham-Jephthah gene). It doesn’t last and ceases to be within a few years.

Who cares if the species lasts? What’s “immoral” about a species going kaput? Your position takes it for granted that such should be the moral barometer.

 

[PRmerger]

A good start would be the priest who performed the exorcisms.

Yeah. I can see how being a Believer could have impaired this priest’s morality.

Kind of.

Actually, as I’m typing this I have to say now: no, being a Believer did not impede the priest’s morality. He simply was mistaken. But not immoral.

Having that Catholic faith led him to believe that demons existed and to misidentify the girl’s problem.

Well, that’s begging the question, isn’t it, Mike?

You assume that demons don’t exist.

But what if they do? Then your premise is worthless, right?

That same faith convinced him he had an obligation to tie down a young girl to perform

But it would require willful blindness to ignore the great number of times where faith (not just Catholic) has caused people to justify, perform, or allow immoral acts.

What, again, is the immoral act the priest did? Tying her down?

If that’s immoral, do you oppose holding your children down to immunize them? Or to have an IV started on them if they were dehydrated?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s funny how when a person in the Church’s history does something good (e.g. Georges Lemaître) the Church will do everything in its power to associate themselves with him or her, but then something terrible happens and they are on their own vile agendas (often without a peep from the Church).

Well, yeah.

You see a problem with folks saying, “We distance ourself from Judas, but we embrace Maximilian Kolbe”?

I certainly don’t.

At any rate, Georges Lamaitre is often brought up in response to the gaga lala objection that the Church opposes science. We like to say, “Really? Well, what about the guy who can claim the Big Bang to his discoveries? And the guy, a monk, who has a whole law of genetic inheritance named after him? Or the Catholic nun who has a whole set of polynomials named after her? Bam! Catholicism embraces science!”