1
1holycatholic
Guest
Properly speaking, that’s not philosophy. This thread doesn’t belong in this forum, perhaps apologetics would be a better place for it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
Leela
Guest
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)I can place a better question: “When did God say that slavery was right?”
You seem to be saying that it was right for God to give permission to keep slaves then but it would be wrong for God to give permission to keep slaves now? Is it still right in some places with economic situations similar to that of the early Hebrews?One of the biggest mistakes (or possibly the biggest mistake) that someone can commit while analyzing an historical period is attempting to analyze it with the same standards and values we have today, because people of the past had absolutely no access to them.
Isn’t this exactly the sort of relativism that atheists are so often accused of?
Best,
Leela
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
The “second law”, the deutronomical laws, were allowances (and strictures) given to the people because they were, as I said above, not ready to “buck the world around them” quite yet:Hi Cats,
When did God ever say that slavery is wrong?
God actually gives permission to enslave:
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Yet God does say that a man beating his slave should to death should be punished…
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21)
So he can beat his slave as long as he doesn’t kill his slave?
“It has been “allowed” by God for his “rather moronic” people, just as various evils are now allowed (such as abortion) because they weren’t “ready yet” to believe what God has always said about it.”
Slavery was also a rather different thing, being nearly universal in every earthly society at the time. It was “the norm”, and to utterly disallow it would have been perceived by ANYONE at the time much as “utterly disallowing freedom of religion other than the true one” would be today in the US (for example).
That “law”, the utter abolition of slavery even in it’s humane variety, would have been so shocking as to drive all individuals from “the Church” (from membership in “the People”), which, apparently, would not have been a wise move on God’s part, and as He didn’t do it, since He only does “wise moves”, reality (aka “what actually happens”) proves that.
Once Christ came onto the scene, no one (not even a pagan “gentile”) was considered a “foreigner” but rather a “brother to us and child of our Father”, which made them ineligible for perpetual slavery.
It’s easy to be anachronistic in judging the past.
That you’d not understand these things, which are not widely known even by Christians, is not surprising, as catechesis on what being a Catholic (Christian) means is and has been extremely poorly done for a LONG time.
:shamrock2:
F
Fran65
Guest
You are right Cats. That is another reason why I like this site. I learn a lot about my faith as well as how to defend it.That you’d not understand these things, which are not widely known even by Christians, is not surprising, as catechesis on what being a Catholic (Christian) means is and has been extremely poorly done for a LONG time.
Thank you
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Cats,
Isn’t this exactly the sort of relativism that you so often accuse others of? Is giving permission to keep slaves good or bad?
Best,
Leela
You seem to be saying that it was right for God to give permission to keep slaves then but it would be wrong for God to give permission to keep slaves now? Is it still right in some places with economic situations similar to that of the early Hebrews?The “second law”, the deutronomical laws, were allowances (and strictures) given to the people because they were, as I said above, not ready to “buck the world around them” quite yet:
“It has been “allowed” by God for his “rather moronic” people, just as various evils are now allowed (such as abortion) because they weren’t “ready yet” to believe what God has always said about it.”
Slavery was also a rather different thing, being nearly universal in every earthly society at the time. It was “the norm”, and to utterly disallow it would have been perceived by ANYONE at the time much as “utterly disallowing freedom of religion other than the true one” would be today in the US (for example).
Isn’t this exactly the sort of relativism that you so often accuse others of? Is giving permission to keep slaves good or bad?
This is not the sort of reasoning that is ever acknowledged by the Church. I’m not saying that the Church has never done this or will never do this. But the Church would never admit to allowing or forbidding behavior to try to be more popular.That “law”, the utter abolition of slavery even in it’s humane variety, would have been so shocking as to drive all individuals from “the Church”
Best,
Leela
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
why do you keep arguing from a text that you neither believe in the validity of, or are able to properly interpret?“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46)
You seem to be saying that it was right for God to give permission to keep slaves then but it would be wrong for God to give permission to keep slaves now? Is it still right in some places with economic situations similar to that of the early Hebrews?
Isn’t this exactly the sort of relativism that atheists are so often accused of?
Best,
Leela
im saying that you are taking it out of context, the context of which is the entirety of Scripture, if you read a couple lines from a complicated contract you cant draw meaningful conclusions, you have to read all the addendum’s, because there are all sorts of conditions that affect the meaning of any one passage.
and frankly we are G-ds property, what he says is okay, is okay, no matter how we might feel about it. you cannot put Him in a box of your expectant morality and any more than you can expect a raccoon or an antelope to act in accord with your moral system.
further, you have stated a disbelief in the existence of G-d so what would it matter to you, what this actions are, they don’t really exist after all.
do you think if you can find some supposed flaw in the bible that, it would somehow mean that He couldn’t exist? does the law not exist when the supreme court invalidates some part of it?
that is no more likely than all the matter of the universe suddenly popping into existence from nothing.
L
Leela
Guest
You keep saying this as though it were profound. How can we discuss the validity of the Bible without referring to the text?why do you keep arguing from a text that you neither believe in the validity of, or are able to properly interpret?
Even if a creator God exists, I would not want to do what he says unless it is moral to do so.and frankly we are G-ds property, what he says is okay, is okay, no matter how we might feel about it.
Best,
Leela
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
because one cannot interpret the Scripture piecemeal, to speak authoritatively on them, one must interpret them in the full light of scripture, we are not for the most part protestants.You keep saying this as though it were profound. How can we discuss the validity of the Bible without referring to the text?
Even if a creator God exists, I would not want to do what he says unless it is moral to do so.
Best,
Leela
otherwise one makes statements concerning Scripture that in no way reflect our general belief, or understanding of them.
as i said earlier, one cannot interpret the meaning of one passage of a complicated contract, with out considering all the other addendum, clauses etc
so unless you claim to be a biblical scholar, your opinion, concerning any particular passage, will lend little weight to your arguments
after all we know full well that you are not seeking to find that any of it is valid, your obvious bias prevents it.
further, validation of the Bible wouldn’t be found in the Scripture, how can one be self validating, in any thing but a math text book?
God does exist as evidenced by the current state of scientific, cosmological evidence, further overwhelming historical, physical, written, evidence along with the testimonies at many present at the time.
you are free to exercise your will in any way you like. and to decide on what you believe is moral, and to act on it, He won’t stop you.
what evidence do you have that might deny any of these assertions?
F
Fran65
Guest
Presumably you would decide of it was moral or not?Even if a creator God exists, I would not want to do what he says unless it is moral to do so.
L
Leela
Guest
Hi Fran,Presumably you would decide of it was moral or not?
Who could decide for someone else what to believe? No one can believe something to be moral or immoral for you. You have to believe it yourself. I don’t see how it could be or has ever been any other way. What am I missing here?
Best,
Leela
R
redneck22
Guest
That’s a good point and I believe its true. However I don’t think morals can be taken in isolation. I think it comes down to origin and value.Hi Fran,
Who could decide for someone else what to believe? No one can believe something to be moral or immoral for you. You have to believe it yourself. I don’t see how it could be or has ever been any other way. What am I missing here?
Best,
Leela
If you believe that a foetus and tonsils are only just cells in your body then there is no “moral dilemma” in removal. If you believe we are “starstuff” evolved from primitive life with no divine (name removed by moderator)ut or divine judgement then the “value” of man is viewed differently.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
God makes the rules. He allowed slavery, which is not necessarily what you think of as “pre-US Civil War” slavery, by the way, because it was a veritable necessity in those days.You seem to be saying that it was right for God to give permission to keep slaves then but it would be wrong for God to give permission to keep slaves now?
It is now wrong to have any form of slavery, with the possible exception of “wage slavery” (which I for one am subject to), because it is no longer a necessity.
As Catholics (Christians), we are to help our neighbors not to need to use slavery. If our brothers are using slavery, they need to be shown why that’s not a necessity and what to replace it with.Is it still right in some places with economic situations similar to that of the early Hebrews?
Keeping slaves was never good, but it was allowable in a “humane” form at a particular time.Isn’t this exactly the sort of relativism that you so often accuse others of? Is giving permission to keep slaves good or bad?
Once again, harming an innocent brother is always an evil, but the slavery of the bible allowed by God was never to be that kind of evil. If individuals did such evil within the slavery instituted during their time then they were sinning, and subject to what their sins would get them.
Applying the standards of one time inappropriately to another time is a common mistake that not only atheists make, though they do do so more often than most.
Before standards have become known we can’t very well be kept to those standards not yet known, can we. The standards of God’s morality have been shown to us as we can “handle” them over time.
The atheist sees the fact that God didn’t simply “make the world perfect” from the beginning as proof that God and His progressively revealed standards are utter nonsense, and that we can simply “make up” our own standards as we wish as “that’s what everyone has done for all history” anyway.
It’s better to have an inviolable standard which is progressively revealed by the All-Wise and All-Good than to have an arbitrary standard re-writable at the whim of temporal power.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
You may think what you like. That doesn’t mean that you’d be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
That “law”, the utter abolition of slavery even in it’s humane variety, would have been so shocking as to drive all individuals from “the Church”
This is not the sort of reasoning that is ever acknowledged by the Church. I’m not saying that the Church has never done this or will never do this. But the Church would never admit to allowing or forbidding behavior to try to be more popular.
Slavery in those days was not a matter of “popularity”. It was a matter of survival, and not survival of the Church but rather the survival of the population who would be prohibited from having their form of slavery.
Once again “slavery” in those days doesn’t mean “pre-US Civil War”-type slavery.
God deemed it more important that His chosen people be allowed the “occasion to sin” called “slavery” than not be able to survive AS a people.
Just as He now allows us “just war”, and to a lesser extent “capital punishment”, He allowed them “their type of slavery”.
Some day, when (if?) it becomes possible to not need to war, as some other “mechanism” makes war a “sub-optimal” choice, then war in any form, too, will be abolished as a moral choice, as an “acceptable occasion to sin” (aka “acceptable risk”), as slavery now has been.
That you haven’t noticed that this has always been the Church’s teaching is not surprising, once again, as it takes a little work to find it out, which even typical Catholics don’t do or know (due, once again, to bad catechesis).
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Leela, please try to keep this axiom in mind:Quote:
Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey View Post
and frankly we are G-ds property, what he says is okay, is okay, no matter how we might feel about it.
Even if a creator God exists, I would not want to do what he says unless it is moral to do so.
God makes the rules, and His rules are always moral.
He CANNOT want anyone to do a thing that is immoral.
You can use that as a “proof” that God is nonsense, if you wish, but we’re just explaining to you why things are as they are, from a Catholic perspective, and we rather expect you to agree that what we say is from our perspective, and not yours.
When you say things that tell us that you don’t understand that God is God, our response will be to show you how God is God.
When you say you would not follow God if He were immoral, we will say you don’t have to worry about that as it’s an impossible situation. (He can’t be immoral.)
For you to be told that twelve-thousand times, and yet come back once again and say “…if God were immoral…”, borders on your being “mocking” of what we believe.
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Don’t confuse “rules” with “beliefs”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran65 View Post
Presumably you would decide if it was moral or not?
Hi Fran,
Who could decide for someone else what to believe?
We believe what we believe because it is “wise” to do so.
Rules are established by those in (some sort of) power.
Rules don’t need to be wise, but they are better when they are.
Wisdom doesn’t need to be codified into rules, but it’s better when they are.
No one decides anything for another. They can only suggest or coerce.
Please dispense with the fuzzy logic. Belief is what we do, and not what others do to us.No one can believe something to be moral or immoral for you. You have to believe it yourself.
If you don’t believe something, you need to find out why. Do you not think the source of the offered “wisdom” is credible? Do you want what is “unwise”? Do you simply not know what “wise” means?
I don’t slight you for not believing in revelation (revealed truth). It is a grace, which you have chosen (for whatever constellation of reasons) not to accept.I don’t see how it could be or has ever been any other way. What am I missing here?
Therefore, you are quite simply left with only relying on yourself as “arbiter of wisdom”. You decide what is moral (and immoral).
Wisdom is not “invention”. It is recognition. We don’t fashion new wisdom, but rather recognize the truths which make us wise.
What you are missing is that storehouses of wisdom come from experts in wisdom, and how are we (or you) experts in wisdom comparable to the Church (extended back to Adam himself)?
:shamrock2:
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
A little light reading:You seem to be saying that it was right for God to give permission to keep slaves then but it would be wrong for God to give permission to keep slaves now?
Is it still right in some places with economic situations similar to that of the early Hebrews?
“Let My People Go”
…various…
…and other…
:shamrock2:
1
1holycatholic
Guest
http://www.twtex.com/forums/image.php?u=2906&dateline=1158346489One of the problems with your arguments is that they presuppose the existence of actual infinities.
Are you unfamiliar with Hume’s attack on causal reasoning?
Hmmm. No response. Evidently the original argument was either a straw-man or an argument from ignorance.
L
Leela
Guest
I’m not sure where you are coming from. Hume’s criticism of causal reasoning seems to undercut the idea of a First Cause. Perhaps you could articulate the argument you’d like to make?http://www.twtex.com/forums/image.php?u=2906&dateline=1158346489
Hmmm. No response. Evidently the original argument was either a straw-man or an argument from ignorance.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
It is not at all obvious to me how enslaving others wold be necessary for the survival of the enslaver and the enslaved. Can you explain?Slavery in those days was not a matter of “popularity”. It was a matter of survival, and not survival of the Church but rather the survival of the population who would be prohibited from having their form of slavery.
Were people who owned slaves in ancient times sinning? Are you saying that those who participate in war right now are sinning?God deemed it more important that His chosen people be allowed the “occasion to sin” called “slavery” than not be able to survive AS a people.
Just as He now allows us “just war”, and to a lesser extent “capital punishment”, He allowed them “their type of slavery”.
Some day, when (if?) it becomes possible to not need to war, as some other “mechanism” makes war a “sub-optimal” choice, then war in any form, too, will be abolished as a moral choice, as an “acceptable occasion to sin” (aka “acceptable risk”), as slavery now has been.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
I guess this isn’t so much an axiom for you but a tautology, but for someone who does not believe in God it makes more sense to think of moral as traditionally defined–what is good to do.Leela, please try to keep this axiom in mind:
God makes the rules, and His rules are always moral.
The real axiom here is that you postulate that God’s rules can be known and are taught by the Catholic church.
Based on the tautology you set up this would indeed be impossible. Yet, for me, if I imagine that there is a personal creator of the universe, I may not want to follow his rules just as my daughters may decide freely when they become adults to not follow mine. They may very well know better than I at that point how they shold live. In fact, I hope they do.He CANNOT want anyone to do a thing that is immoral.
It is not mocking to not accept your axioms.For you to be told that twelve-thousand times, and yet come back once again and say “…if God were immoral…”, borders on your being “mocking” of what we believe.
Best,
Leela
- Status
- Not open for further replies.