Judge Orders Removal of Oklahoma Ten Commandments Monument Within 30 Days

[Mike_from_NJ]

Oh, the Old Testament. First of all, Catholics do not take the Bible literally.

Which testament do you believe the 10 Commandments came from?

And according to the Catechism the Church views scripture in one of four ways: 1 is literal, and 3 are non-literal. But all scripture is said to reflect truth, meaning that it is true in either a literal or symbolic way. That also means that even if a passage is not literal if it involves God it is an insight of him. You can’t brush it aside my saying “Catholics do not take the Bible literally” (which is not true) but must demonstrate how even if an uncomfortable passage is not literal it needs to be shown how it doesn’t reflect poorly on God.

But, the point I was making is that God did not command people to sin.

I would agree, in so much that God decides what is and is not a “sin”. If you change it to God did not command people to do evil, then we have numerous passages of scripture that suggest otherwise.

People use the Bible for all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make it official Christian teaching. And if Protestants want to quote the OT to justify slave ownership, that is wrong. Has the Catholic Church ever approved of slave ownership? No, of course not.

I’m kind of in the middle of another slavery thread on CAF, but I can’t help myself from correcting you on your last statement. Hopefully without diverting this thread much further here is a small sample of times the Church endorsed slavery:
Dum Diversas, a papal bull that allowed Portugal to enslave any and all pagans whenever, wherever, and however.
Synod of Melfi where children of clergy were declared slaves.
Fourth Council of Toledo where it talks about (among other things) how Jews can’t own slaves (as opposed to saying no one can own slaves) and that slaves of the Chuch (meaning they owned slaves) could become deacons and priests.

 

[meltzerboy]

Oh, the Old Testament. First of all, Catholics do not take the Bible literally.

But, the point I was making is that God did not command people to sin. He reacted to their sinfulness by doing A,B and C.

Of course. That was my point. We are all a combination of many things.

People use the Bible for all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make it official Christian teaching. And if Protestants want to quote the OT to justify slave ownership, that is wrong. Has the Catholic Church ever approved of slave ownership? No, of course not.

Yes, Lincoln used his views of Christianity to stand up for what is right and was killed for it.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t know of anyone who is compassionate and fair-minded that didn’t learn it from someone else first or want to be the opposite of something they didn’t like.
Lincoln couldn’t have flooded the world or get people to kill their firstborn even if he wanted to.

Old Testament bible study is very complicated from a Catholic perspective and I can not do it justice.

Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) study is also very complicated, lax, from a Jewish perspective! In fact, there is nothing easy about Bible study from ANY perspective, including literary and secular. However, pay attention DG, every one of your interesting points detailing how G-d has committed immoral acts can and has been refuted (some might say explained away) by biblical scholars. A topic for another thread or several threads.

 

[meltzerboy]

Which testament do you believe the 10 Commandments came from?

And according to the Catechism the Church views scripture in one of four ways: 1 is literal, and 3 are non-literal. But all scripture is said to reflect truth, meaning that it is true in either a literal or symbolic way. That also means that even if a passage is not literal if it involves God it is an insight of him. You can’t brush it aside my saying “Catholics do not take the Bible literally” (which is not true) but must demonstrate how even if an uncomfortable passage is not literal it needs to be shown how it doesn’t reflect poorly on God.

I would agree, in so much that God decides what is and is not a “sin”. If you change it to God did not command people to do evil, then we have numerous passages of scripture that suggest otherwise.

I’m kind of in the middle of another slavery thread on CAF, but I can’t help myself from correcting you on your last statement. Hopefully without diverting this thread much further here is a small sample of times the Church endorsed slavery:
Dum Diversas, a papal bull that allowed Portugal to enslave any and all pagans whenever, wherever, and however.
Synod of Melfi where children of clergy were declared slaves.
Fourth Council of Toledo where it talks about (among other things) how Jews can’t own slaves (as opposed to saying no one can own slaves) and that slaves of the Chuch (meaning they owned slaves) could become deacons and priests.

I can assure you, Mike, that any kind of meaningful explanation would derail the current topic. Start another thread on the seemingly immoral acts of G-d if you would like, and we can talk then.

 

[lax16]

Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) study is also very complicated, lax, from a Jewish perspective! In fact, there is nothing easy about Bible study from ANY perspective, including literary and secular. However, pay attention DG, every one of your interesting points detailing how G-d has committed immoral acts can and has been refuted (some might say explained away) by biblical scholars. A topic for another thread or several threads.

meltzerboy - You are so right. I don’t even try to go there!

 

[meltzerboy]

Thank you. I appreciate your kind response.

You’re most welcome, Convert.

 

[lax16]

Which testament do you believe the 10 Commandments came from?

And according to the Catechism the Church views scripture in one of four ways: 1 is literal, and 3 are non-literal. But all scripture is said to reflect truth, meaning that it is true in either a literal or symbolic way. That also means that even if a passage is not literal if it involves God it is an insight of him. You can’t brush it aside my saying “Catholics do not take the Bible literally” (which is not true) but must demonstrate how even if an uncomfortable passage is not literal it needs to be shown how it doesn’t reflect poorly on God.

I am currently in an Old Testament Bible Study at a Catholic Church run by a Catholic deacon. We do not take all of the OT literally.

The 10 Commandments come from the OT. These are commandments from God that we follow. Not sure what your point is? Catholics believe much of the Old Testament, just not in the same literal way Protestants do.

The concept of time, for example, is not literal. Did God literally create the world in seven 24 hour days? Not sure, not important.

I would agree, in so much that God decides what is and is not a “sin”. If you change it to God did not command people to do evil, then we have numerous passages of scripture that suggest otherwise.

Please give a few examples where God commands people to do evil.

I’m kind of in the middle of another slavery thread on CAF, but I can’t help myself from correcting you on your last statement. Hopefully without diverting this thread much further here is a small sample of times the Church endorsed slavery:
Dum Diversas, a papal bull that allowed Portugal to enslave any and all pagans whenever, wherever, and however.
Synod of Melfi where children of clergy were declared slaves.
Fourth Council of Toledo where it talks about (among other things) how Jews can’t own slaves (as opposed to saying no one can own slaves) and that slaves of the Chuch (meaning they owned slaves) could become deacons and priests.

This is a helpful explanation:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I am currently in an Old Testament Bible Study at a Catholic Church run by a Catholic deacon. We do not take all of the OT literally.

It’s a very important distinction between saying that Catholics don’t take the Old Testament literally and that they don’t take all of the Old Testament literally. And I agree with you that Catholics (as layed out in the Catechism) can read the Scriptures (not just the Old Testament) in multiple ways, some of which are not literal.

But you want to use that in such a way so that you can brush aside the uncomfortable conclusions that occur when reading the many passages in the Bible where god outlines what the Hebrews can do in owning slaves.

Even if the passages are not literal you still need to address what they mean in terms of God and faith.

1. Why should we consider these passages non-literal, especially when they are smackdab in the middle of other passages which are to be taken literally? For example, the passages in Exodus 21 which outline how to beat a slave, sell your daughter into slavery, and how to blackmail your slave are part of a long monologue from God himself (starting in Exodus 20) where he gives both basic tort law and the Ten Commandments themselves.
2. If the passages are not literal, what are they trying to communicate? Does that non-literal translation reflect favorably on God?

The 10 Commandments come from the OT. These are commandments from God that we follow. Not sure what your point is? Catholics believe much of the Old Testament, just not in the same literal way Protestants do.

My point is that if you are so willing to toss aside multiple passages because without any real reason to do so, then there is little that can keep one from tossing aside other passages – including ones in the very same monologue.

Please give a few examples where God commands people to do evil.

I think DaddyGirl gave several great examples, but here’s a good one. This piece of transcript comes from a TV movie from a few years back called “God On Trial”. It is the (possibly apocrophyl) story of some Jewish men in a Nazi concentration camp who put God on trial for breaking his covenant with them:

Rabbi: And he gave us a king in Saul. Now when the people of Amalek fought Saul’s people, what did the Lord God command? I’ll ask the scholar.

Scholar: Crush Amalek and put him under the curse of destruction.

Rabbi: Was Saul to show any mercy to spare anyone?

Scholar: Do not spare…

Rabbi: Do not spare him, but kill. Kill man, woman, babe, and suckling, ox, and sheep, cattle and donkey. So Saul set out to do this and on the way he met some Kenites. Now these were not Amalek’s people, he had no quarrel with them. He urged them to flee. And the Lord our God was he pleased by the mercy of Saul, by the justice of Saul?

Scholar: No. No he wasn’t.

Rabbi: And when Saul decided not to slaughter all the livestock and to take it to feed his people, was God pleased with his prudence, his charity?

Scholar: No.

Rabbi: No, he was not. He said, you have rejected the word of Adonai, therefore he has rejected you as king. And then to please the Lord our God, Samuel brought forth the king Agar and hacked him to pieces before the Lord at Gilgar.

{ continued in part 2 }

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

This is a helpful explanation:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

That article goes into detail about three writings: Sicut Dudum, Sublimis Deus, and In Supremo (officially it’s In Supremo Apostolatus). Let’s go through them one at a time:

Sicut Dudum - The bull was specific to those people in the Canary Islands, and more specifically only to those people in the Canary Islands who agreed to convert to Christianity. As this article notes:

Eugene excommunicated anyone who enslaved newly converted Christians, but no protection was offered to those who declined to become a Christian. Historian Richard Raiswell sees this as a significant turning point because prior to this Canon Law had only sanctioned slavery in the context of a just war and un-baptized captives, but with the issuing of this bull the only protection offered was if the person became a Christian.

It also notes how the bull was amended after complaints from Spain:

Eugene tempered “Sicut Dudum” with another bull (15 September 1436) due to the complaints made by King Duarte of Portugal, now allowing the Portuguese to conquer any unconverted parts of the Canary Islands. According to Raiswell (1997) any Christian would be protected by the earlier edict but the un-baptized were implicitly allowed to be enslaved.

When the article says, “Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong,” we can see that is outright false.

Sublimis Dei - Yes, 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. The article you linked to made asbolutely no reference to this being repealed. Why? Because it’s embarrassing and doesn’t fit with the narrative being portrayed.

In Supremo Apostolatus - This is a somewhat positive step in calling slavery wrong, although doesn’t do it as plainly or clearly as it does in Vatican II, There are still two problems. One, the initial translation uses the term “unjustly” when talking about enslaving Indains and black people. As this wiki article explains this word may have led those clergy in the Americas to continue to support slave-holding interests. A translation over a century later removes the word unjustly even though the Latin word “injuste” is clearly part of the bull. Two, the article you linked to led to questions as to what was or was not being denounced. If I tell someone something and they relay that information incorrectly to others, I make all efforts to correct that. If the bull was being misapplied (which the article claims had occurred), where was the Church in correcting this misunderstanding? And even if we are to say that the purpose of the bull was to denounce both slavery and the slave trade, why did it take 17 centuriesowned slaves?

No, the article was not helpful in swaying me into believing the Church was against slavery. Perhaps research instead of just posting links will help you out.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I can assure you, Mike, that any kind of meaningful explanation would derail the current topic. Start another thread on the seemingly immoral acts of G-d if you would like, and we can talk then.

My response was due to these statement by lax16:

Please use examples from scripture where God commands anyone to do something immoral.

Oh, the Old Testament. First of all, Catholics do not take the Bible literally.

Has the Catholic Church ever approved of slave ownership? No, of course not.

Perhaps you should admonish lax16 instead of me for addressing these issues, or more relevantly admonish him for making statements which are not true and/or easily researched and discredited.

 

[BobCatholic]

The official religion of the state is Atheism. More proof here.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The official religion of the state is Atheism. More proof here.

The official position is secular, meaning that the state is neutral on matters of religion. It would be just as wrong for a courthouse or public school to have signs saying “There is no god,” as it is for signs to say that the Christian god is real and must be worshipped.

 

[lax16]

It’s a very important distinction between saying that Catholics don’t take the Old Testament literally and that they don’t take all of the Old Testament literally. And I agree with you that Catholics (as layed out in the Catechism) can read the Scriptures (not just the Old Testament) in multiple ways, some of which are not literal.

But you want to use that in such a way so that you can brush aside the uncomfortable conclusions that occur when reading the many passages in the Bible where god outlines what the Hebrews can do in owning slaves.

No, not really. Usually Catholics say " we don’t take the bible literally." You asked about the Ten Commandments and I agreed that we follow those commandments from God, but even the Protestants would say Catholics pray to idols and are not literally following the Ten Commandments.

Even if the passages are not literal you still need to address what they mean in terms of God and faith.

1. Why should we consider these passages non-literal, especially when they are smackdab in the middle of other passages which are to be taken literally? For example, the passages in Exodus 21 which outline how to beat a slave, sell your daughter into slavery, and how to blackmail your slave are part of a long monologue from God himself (starting in Exodus 20) where he gives both basic tort law and the Ten Commandments themselves.

1. If the passages are not literal, what are they trying to communicate? Does that non-literal translation reflect favorably on God?

I really can’t explain. The O.T. is extremely difficult to understand, but there are biblical scholars that do a good job explaining these seemingly insurmountable inconsistencies.

As far as God and faith, as a Catholic, I view God from the New Testament and work backwards. Then, when possible, I try to learn about God in the OT. It requires a good Bible study. Nobody, not even the most brilliant scholar, could possibly understand the OT
without the collaboration of other great Biblical scholars.

I have no problem believing in God despite difficult O.T. scripture passages.

My point is that if you are so willing to toss aside multiple passages because without any real reason to do so, then there is little that can keep one from tossing aside other passages – including ones in the very same monologue.

I’m not tossing any passages aside.

I think DaddyGirl gave several great examples, but here’s a good one. This piece of transcript comes from a TV movie from a few years back called “God On Trial”. It is the (possibly apocrophyl) story of some Jewish men in a Nazi concentration camp who put God on trial for breaking his covenant with them:

{ continued in part 2 }

 

[lax16]

That article goes into detail about three writings: Sicut Dudum, Sublimis Deus, and In Supremo (officially it’s In Supremo Apostolatus). Let’s go through them one at a time:

Sicut Dudum - The bull was specific to those people in the Canary Islands, and more specifically only to those people in the Canary Islands who agreed to convert to Christianity. As this article notes:

It also notes how the bull was amended after complaints from Spain:

When the article says, “Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong,” we can see that is outright false.

Sublimis Dei - Yes, 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. The article you linked to made asbolutely no reference to this being repealed. Why? Because it’s embarrassing and doesn’t fit with the narrative being portrayed.

In Supremo Apostolatus - This is a somewhat positive step in calling slavery wrong, although doesn’t do it as plainly or clearly as it does in Vatican II, There are still two problems. One, the initial translation uses the term “unjustly” when talking about enslaving Indains and black people. As this wiki article explains this word may have led those clergy in the Americas to continue to support slave-holding interests. A translation over a century later removes the word unjustly even though the Latin word “injuste” is clearly part of the bull. Two, the article you linked to led to questions as to what was or was not being denounced. If I tell someone something and they relay that information incorrectly to others, I make all efforts to correct that. If the bull was being misapplied (which the article claims had occurred), where was the Church in correcting this misunderstanding? And even if we are to say that the purpose of the bull was to denounce both slavery and the slave trade, why did it take 17 centuriesowned slaves

?

No, the article was not helpful in swaying me into believing the Church was against slavery. Perhaps research instead of just posting links will help you out.

I was not trying to sway you into believing anything. I offered a link to help with some of the topic at hand, not all of it.

I don’t know that I will spend too much time researching this for two reasons. One, others have already done it and two, it is not something I am going to take the time to do right now.

Honestly, if I was an atheist arguing with Catholics about God, I would not expect to find too many lay Catholics interested in the topic of slavery or the Old Testament. I appreciate your interest it, however I would let Catholic scholars have a chance at offering an explanation before assuming there are no explanations.

 

[lax16]

My response was due to these statement by lax16:

Perhaps you should admonish lax16 instead of me for addressing these issues, or more relevantly admonish him for making statements which are not true and/or easily researched and discredited.

I have not made any statements that are untrue or without credit. You can disagree with me but stopping with me is just a cop out. Let the scholars address your questions.

And, mb was not admonishing anyone. He simply stated that this is such a huge topic that it really should have its own thread.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I really can’t explain. The O.T. is extremely difficult to understand, but there are biblical scholars that do a good job explaining these seemingly insurmountable inconsistencies.

If there are such scholars who have addressed these problems that I’ve pointed out with the handling of Biblical slavery, can you direct me to one of them?

As far as God and faith, as a Catholic, I view God from the New Testament and work backwards. Then, when possible, I try to learn about God in the OT. It requires a good Bible study. Nobody, not even the most brilliant scholar, could possibly understand the OT without the collaboration of other great Biblical scholars.

Is the New Testament somehow more true than the Old Testament? It’s not at the level of Marcionism, but this idea that the Old Testament is of little importance flies in the face of what the Catechism teaches.

I have no problem believing in God despite difficult O.T. scripture passages.

There are many who feel the same way. I come from a family of Catholics. It is interesting though that when passages like these are discussed the arguments for are either weak or non-existant.

I’m not tossing any passages aside.

I would have to disagree with you.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I was not trying to sway you into believing anything. I offered a link to help with some of the topic at hand, not all of it.

And that’s fine, but I have exposed several major flaws with that article. With that being said if the topic were to come up again would you once again direct people to that article?

I don’t know that I will spend too much time researching this for two reasons. One, others have already done it and two, it is not something I am going to take the time to do right now.

And that’s fine about not wanting to do the researching, but you made a truth claim that the Church did not endorse slavery. I have shown that not to be the case (and I still have other items I could link to if that’s not sufficient). If asked at another time, would you again state that the Church did not endorse slavery considering the several pieces of evidence I’ve shown to the contrary?

Honestly, if I was an atheist arguing with Catholics about God, I would not expect to find too many lay Catholics interested in the topic of slavery or the Old Testament. I appreciate your interest it, however I would let Catholic scholars have a chance at offering an explanation before assuming there are no explanations.

I’m quite open-minded, but as it stands now I have not heard or seen any evidence that shows that either God was against slavery or that the Church was. If you or anybody else can provide evidence I will change my mind. As an open-minded person who has actually done the research I can do nothing else but state that the God character in the Bible and the Catholic Church have shown to endorse and propagate slavery.

 

[meltzerboy]

If there are such scholars who have addressed these problems that I’ve pointed out with the handling of Biblical slavery, can you direct me to one of them?

Is the New Testament somehow more true than the Old Testament? It’s not at the level of Marcionism, but this idea that the Old Testament is of little importance flies in the face of what the Catechism teaches.

There are many who feel the same way. I come from a family of Catholics. It is interesting though that when passages like these are discussed the arguments for are either weak or non-existant.

I would have to disagree with you.

If you find the Catholic arguments weak, then you might study the Jewish arguments. They are accessible on the Internet. Or, as I previously stated, you may start a new thread so that we can discuss these issues.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I have not made any statements that are untrue or without credit. You can disagree with me but stopping with me is just a cop out. Let the scholars address your questions.

Again you made several statements of fact that I have shown not to be true. You tried to direct me to a scholar on one of those statements and it was demonstrated to be quite false. It’s courteous to back up your assertions or retract them. Please either show where I was wrong or direct me to someone who can.

 

[lax16]

If there are such scholars who have addressed these problems that I’ve pointed out with the handling of Biblical slavery, can you direct me to one of them?

I will work on that when I can.

Is the New Testament somehow more true than the Old Testament? It’s not at the level of Marcionism, but this idea that the Old Testament is of little importance flies in the face of what the Catechism teaches.

Of course not. Why do you keep insinuating I have said things that I haven’t said?

There are many who feel the same way. I come from a family of Catholics. It is interesting though that when passages like these are discussed the arguments for are either weak or non-existant.

I would have to disagree with you.

I don’t agree the arguments are weak or non-existent. Most Catholics don’t find this to be of utmost importance. However, if it is important to you, seek out sources that can at least address your concerns.

 

[lax16]

Again you made several statements of fact that I have shown not to be true. You tried to direct me to a scholar on one of those statements and it was demonstrated to be quite false. It’s courteous to back up your assertions or retract them. Please either show where I was wrong or direct me to someone who can.

I provided only one link. It is not the only source.

Listen, Mike from NJ, I just got out of the hospital last week and am now dealing with migraines that are horrible. I am not as quick as I should be, but I have not said anything that is not true.