Bloodlust.So why is there so much divisiveness about the death penalty when the Bible itself openly talks about how to treat your slaves?
Verses, s’il vous plaît.The death penalty has some kind of prescriptive New Treatment support, i.e., it’s not something that was merely allowed, but seen as an execution of justice by God through the state.
Isn’t it though, by ordering people to endure being chattel like it’s some sort of moral obligation?While there are prescriptions of slaves towards masters, that’s not the same as commanding people to own slaves or presenting slavery as a good thing in itself.
I thought that God was unchangeable. Now you tell me that God changes His mind?God clearly reversed his mind re Usury somewhere between Moses and the newly monied Catholic merchants in medieval times who lobbied the Papacy for change.
See Romans 13:1-4, and note the language being used. It does more than merely permit it.Verses, s’il vous plaît.
Not really. Both Peter and a Paul exhort Christians to bear the wrongs of persecution against them in general. This doesn’t imply a positive view of persecution itself.Isn’t it though, by ordering people to endure being chattel like it’s some sort of moral obligation?
Doesn’t even mention capital punishment.See Romans 13:1-4, and note the language being used. It does more than merely permit it.
Not really, since they aren’t being commanded to set their slaves free.So what you have is a condemnation of chattle slavery
The problem is that in philosophical and theological discussions of God, it is definitively stated that God is unchangeable. Otherwise He would be a “contingent” being and it is not good for God to be a “contingent” being.Whats the problem?
Meh… usury is still wrong (though it had and still has a specific definition that doesn’t involve all forms of lending, or even lending at interest). What happened was more that the banking system in the 1800s became so complex that what the church did was stop enforcing the teaching (or had already been kind of weak on it anyway). Our never taught that usury was legitimate though.God clearly reversed his mind re Usury somewhere between Moses and the newly monied Catholic merchants in medieval times who lobbied the Papacy for change.
Did they change the definition of usury ?Meh… usury is still wrong (though it had and still has a specific definition that doesn’t involve all forms of lending, or even lending at interest). What happened was more that the banking system in the 1800s became so complex that what the church did was stop enforcing the teaching (or had already been kind of weak on it anyway). Our never taught that usury was legitimate though.
Doesn’t imply capital punishment. There are plenty of countries that have abolished capital punishment and yet still have armed police.The Romans passage talked about the wielding of the sword as an enactment of God’s justice. Did I cite the wrong verses?
…and that was purely based on the whims of their masters. Mistreatment of slaves wouldn’t occur if they weren’t seen as subhumans that could be bought and sold.Not all slaves were treated like this though in antiquity.
And supposedly that was wrong. But now it is OK to charge interest and usury is defined as excessive interest. So usury is still wrong, but the definition of what it is has changed. IOW what was usury in the past is no longer considered to be wrong.The original definition was the charging of interest in what was called a mutuum loan.
No. It has been proven already that since pi is a transcendental number, it is impossible to construct a square with the same area as a circle using only a finite number of steps with a compass and straight edge. I don’t care how smart a Catholic philosopher is, she will not be able to square a circle.I am sure Catholic philosopher’s are smart enough to square the circle.