Precisely. And good on you @goout, for recommending that video by Bishop Barron. He is fantastic on this issue.
Thank you for this. I still struggle with some passages. It’s a mystery that keeps me coming back to delve more deeply.
The book was intended to help those who were troubled by these types of passages, including non-believers. I’m not saying that there is only one possible reaction to reading the book, but I think it’s unfair to paint all those who find Horn’s book troubling as well as stubborn and unwilling to take in what he says.
And this is moral relativism, which I’ve noted is something believers decry while at the same time are the first to use in an a discussion. God is said to be all-knowing, able to see past, present, and future. Yet, what is written doesn’t appear to be from an all-knowing or all-loving being. At no point in history is right to kill someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day. At no point in history is right to call a man righteous who offered his daughters up to be raped by numerous men. At no point in history is it right to say a man can be beaten to death by a rod if he dies a day later because he is merely property. I’m glad you found solace in Trent Horn’s book, but I simply couldn’t accept what was being served.
Yes, all the greatest minds of the church have affirmed this.
Correct. And all of the greatest minds of the church likewise observed what you have observed in the OT stories. You don’t have access to sacred writings that they didn’t. And presumably there is no reason to believe that your conscience is more mature/well-formed than theirs.
Suppose for a moment that any reasonable person (even a Catholic) with a properly-functioning conscience would agree with all of your moral assertions above. What do you do then?
Yes, the minds of the Church don’t see a clash between the Bible and their morals; but that doesn’t tell us anything. It’s a simple matter of self-selection. If they did have such a clash on morals than they likely would no longer be a part of the Church (at least internally). You can apply the same reasoning to any organization: People who are a part of organization X are generally in favor of the actions of organization X, and would leave if they weren’t.Mike_from_NJ:
Correct. And all of the greatest minds of the church likewise observed what you have observed in the OT stories. You don’t have access to sacred writings that they didn’t. And presumably there is no reason to believe that your conscience is more mature/well-formed than theirs.
Different people are going to react differently to these quandaries. I’m not looking to push people to any particular conclusion, but at the same time I find there are some who won’t take on these issues openly for fear of what conclusion they might lead to.
Let’s press the pause button right there. I believe you indicated that there exist various moral norms (you used language of “at no point in history…”). If so, then their morals are your morals. There would be no qualitative distinction between the conscience of St Thomas Aquinas and Mike from NJ, right? Or, is your conscience superior to that of other folks? That would be unlikely, it seems to me. But is that your claim? Your conscience is…enlightened in some special way? You see moral repulsiveness where others see no problems? You are in a special position to judge rights and wrongs that others don’t have access to?
So would I. Who did that?
Jen i would suggest your Dad start by reading the Gospels of the New Testament.
These lines seemed to indicate that non-believers have closed their minds to any evidence or argument that might change their minds:
One can be convinced of something and still have an open mind, and be receptive to new information. This is true not only in religion, but in science, politics, society, and so on. There are plenty of stories of people who were steadfast on one position until presented with (pardon the expression) damning evidence that made them change their minds.
The way I determine what is good is by judging if an action (or inaction) does the most benefit and the least unnecessary harm as compared to other actions. This is simply an expansion on the “Do unto others” that most philosophies have. Because of this there are certain things that may be immoral in one time and place and moral in other times and places. For example, killing a person when he is set to kill another is moral; but immoral when there is no imminent danger. Ejecting a person from a town for having a highly infectious disease is moral in a time when there is no cure, treatment, or chance of quarantine; but immoral when it can be treated. cured, or quarantined.
Thomas Aquinas’s conscience should have been a bit closer to mine, but he advocated the death penalty for heretics – an act that is never warranted. Someone like Thomas More actually was involved in the death of heretics, and I have to question the moral compass of someone like that.
I am by no means a superior person let alone a perfect person. But that doesn’t mean that I or everybody else who is not perfect can’t point at something that is supposed to be the very epitome of goodness and state that something smells wrong. I am assuming you’ve read through the Bible more than once. How did you react when you reached Exodus 21, where God goes into very specific details how one can do harm to another as a slave? You might say the Hebrews had owned slaves, but that was over 430 years prior before they themselves were enslaved. You might says other nations at that time owned slaves, but that would purposely ignore multiple warnings by God in Deuteronomy to not follow the practices of other nations. You might talk about Christ’s call for kindness, but that not only ignores the needless cruelty in the OT passages but the idea that Christ never said a bad work about slavery.
It’s not my place to say what one should do if troubled by the OT. Some leave the faith (see various Pew Forum polls). Others choose a variant of Christianity that focuses less on the OT. Some stick with the faith. One thing I do ask is that this not be swept passages under the rug, nor should the morality of someone who finds those passages unpleasant be attacked.
And if you check the non-Catholic religions section of CAF you will find the occasional thread where someone dissects those passages finding fault with them.
I would disagree with that. A significant portion of believers treated the OT as literal. Geology began as a means to prove a literal flood (only to backfire). The slavery portion of Exodus is right the middle of a list of rules for his people to follow, including the Commandments.
Apologetics is really just a fancy way of saying “Oh that doesn’t count.” It’s done without rigor, reason, or restraint. Is there a passage that makes God look bad? That doesn’t count. As I said, even if we treat certain passages as non-literal we get a picture of a deity that is vindictave, bloodthirsty, amd impetuous. This doesn’t come close to the idea that God isn’t just full of love, but is love itself.
Trent Horn’s book “Hard Sayings” does bring up an interesting study. The book is home and I’m not, so I’m paraphrasing. The study had kids read a story of a man who was directed by a spirit to do all sorts of terrible things. They then had kids read the same story but replace the man and the spirit with a specific religious character and the deity, and the kids mostly saw no problem.
Let’s grant what you say here. (I’m not the biggest fan of apologetics, since, in my experience, it usually has a strong inclination toward fundamentalism underlying it—whether Catholic or Evangelical. But, the wise person will always look for what underlies motivations. What underlies Anselm or Gregory of Nyssa or Origen is the same basic impulse that underlies your objections. All of the greatest minds of the church (and not a few Jewish ones either— Philo of Alexandria) acknowledged that if God exists, He must be all-good. God cannot be just a giant version of a human with all the same errors and foibles and conceits. God cannot fail to be anything other than good, merciful and love itself. That was and is the starting point. I would submit to you that it’s your starting point too, as it’s something of a universal starting point. Who wants to consider a god that is cruel, conditionally-loving and vindictive? Some folks will, but most that continue to learn and grow in a deepened sense of spirituality will reject such a deity as not likely to exist.
Well Mike, I’ve been at this for some time. I’m afraid there really was a robust allegorical approach to the scriptures prior to the Renaissance. This just is the case. If you genuinely are not aware of this, I invite you to view a very useful video that I referenced above. If you watch it, I think it might clear up some misconceptions you have regarding the early and medieval churches and their approach to the scriptures. But, I take it that you are arguing more with the Trent Horns and Norman Geislers of the world—the Western apologists. But as I stated, this is out of step with the historical interpretive approach of the church. (More later.)
Ah. So you inferred what I did not (intentionally at least) imply. Perhaps if I had written the post with the rigor of an academic treatise rather than a simple conversation? Or perhaps not. In any case, I think I have participated enough in the thread hijacking, so if you want to get In the last word feel free, but I am done.