When speaking of slavery, no one questions whether this is a moral wrong. That has always been the case. Society as a whole has evoled in its perception to acknowledge this wrong, with the exception of some African and Asian cultures.Also, this difference between what is and what is not disciplinary seems to be itself rather subjective. For example, is the forcible kidnapping and enslavement of a young boy from his parents always wrong, or is it forbidden merely on disciplinary grounds so that sometimes it would be permitted? I bring this up becasue the question concerns the possible subjective nature of truth.
St. Paul accepts slavery as he counsels slaves to obey their masters.When speaking of slavery, no one questions whether this is a moral wrong. That has always been the case.
I note you picked the first paragraph of my response in post #42. How about addressing paragraph numbers 2 & 3. You may be able to answer your own question if you do so.St. Paul accepts slavery as he counsels slaves to obey their masters.
Also “in 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted a gift of a hundred Moorish slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, giving some of them to his favorite cardinals.”
and
“The first transnational, institutional endorsement of African slavery occurred in 1452 when Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Dum Diversas, which granted King Afonso V or Portugal the right to reduce to “perpetual slavery” all Saracens and pagans and other infidels and enemies of Christ” in West Africa."
See:
yale.edu/glc/events/race/Sweet.pdf
So at one point in time the truth was that slavery was permitted. At another point in time it is not.
Similarly with torture.
Does this not point to the subjective nature of this type of truth?
The question concerns the subjectivity of certain types of truths.I note you picked the first paragraph of my response in post #42. How about addressing paragraph numbers 2 & 3. You may be able to answer your own question if you do so.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
I thought you meant my points 2 and 3 which were enumerated. But I see here you mean paragraphs 2 and 3 of yours?Bob, you still have not addressed paragraph 2 & 3. You still go back to paragraph # 1. Why are you afraid of addressing those other two points that I brought out. Again, they are in post # 42.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
I look forward to your response.I thought you meant my points 2 and 3 which were enumerated. But I see here you mean paragraphs 2 and 3 of yours?
I’ll try to answer in a bit.
Thanks
Perhaps we can say that there are different types of truths. Or perhaps different levels of truth. So the question on whether or not truth is subjective needs to be delineated more carefully, so that we can know what type of truth we are talking about.The fact that God exists is an Objective truth, As he always has, does, and always will exist. That is objective truth. He does not change because he is infinite.
this has got less to do with the objectivity of “truth” as it does with the question “are there absolute moral norms?”…The question concerns the subjectivity of certain types of truths.
There is not much more that I can add concerning 2 and 3, both of which seem to support the subjective nature of the truth that is involved here. I don;t know if it makes too much sense to continue on it, but if you insist, here it is again:
Torture and slavery were at one time allowed. Now they are not. This would point to the subjective nature of some moral norms or truths.
He used a straw argument against you. God did not change. He became man and took on body, blood and soul. His divinity did not change. Body, blood and soul does not comprise the essence of God. It is his divinity. He chose to do this, i.e., become man in order to redeem us so we could be saved. This did not alter his divinity one bit.Perhaps we can say that there are different types of truths. Or perhaps different levels of truth. So the question on whether or not truth is subjective needs to be delineated more carefully, so that we can know what type of truth we are talking about.
But this is an interesting point that you have brought up here, that God does not change. The reason I say that is because I recently heard an objection raised by a Muslim to this teaching as it is in Catholicism. His objection was the following:
Catholics say that God does not change. However, in the year 10 BC, He was not on earth. Then a few years later, He was born on earth and He lived among us. He preached various things which He did not preach before His birth. Then He died on the Cross. The question of the Muslim was this: Does that not indicate that God has changed, since in 100 BC He had not yet come down to earth. But later on, there was a change and He did come down to earth and died on the Cross and then was Resurrected.
Ok. But what about the Copenhage interpretation of Quantum mechanics or the role of the observer in the ensemble interpretation? Or still, what about the Participatory Anthropic Principle as discussed in the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler ?this has got less to do with the objectivity of “truth” as it does with the question “are there absolute moral norms?”…
look, truth is “objective” if it is a property of propositions (or sentences or whatever your pet carrier of truth-values happens to be), and it is a property those propositions possess independently of anything we do or think (unless, of course, the propositions are ***about ***what we’re doing or thinking).
to that extent, saying that the proposition “moral norms are subjective” is true, is tacitly to accept the objectivity of “truth”.
similarly, the proposition “slavery was ok in the new testament” will be true or false objectively.
as an aside, there is nothing about the proposition “there are absolute moral norms” that entails the proposition “***all ***moral norms are absolute”. which means that there can be some differences in morality over time without that meaning that there are no fixed points on the moral compass.
also, just because a bunch of people at some time or in some place thought that some action was right or wrong, or that some proposition was true or false, dosn’t mean that they were correct. that is to say: differences in opinion are not evidence of differences of fact.
however, the question was whether or not, when God takes on human form, it involves some sort of a change?God did not change. He became man and took on body, blood and soul.
i still don’t see what this has to do with the objectivity of truth: if god changes, then the proposition “god is changeless” is objectively false; if god doesn’t change, then it is objectively true.He used a straw argument against you. God did not change. He became man and took on body, blood and soul. His divinity did not change. Body, blood and soul does not comprise the essence of God. It is his divinity. He chose to do this, i.e., become man in order to redeem us so we could be saved. This did not alter his divinity one bit.
what about it? all canonical QM proposes to do is make everything a function of something we do - something we do. like running. or jumping. or laughing.Ok. But what about the Copenhage interpretation of Quantum mechanics or the role of the observer in the ensemble interpretation? Or still, what about the Participatory Anthropic Principle as discussed in the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler ?
According to my understanding of Catholic teaching, God is Truth.i still don’t see what this has to do with the objectivity of truth: if god changes, then the proposition “god is changeless” is objectively false; if god doesn’t change, then it is objectively true. ?
traditionally, the answer is that god only undergoes what’s called a “cambridge” change, which is to say that he undergoes only a nominal change.however, the question was whether or not, when God takes on human form, it involves some sort of a change?
sure.According to my understanding of Catholic teaching, God is Truth.
For this point, if knowledge is then a function of something that we do, that would point to the subjective nature of knowledge.what about it? all canonical QM proposes to do is make everything a function of something we do - something we do. like running. or jumping. or laughing.