(June 21, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I feel like at this point, if I post it here, a ton of the members from this forum may join with the sole intention of antagonizing the Catholic members to see what happens. It wouldn't be fair to those people if I did that. Especially since Randy and I are on there.

Nice of you to assume we're all a bunch of uncivilized animals. Or, is it because you're afraid your claims won't stand up on inspection?

(June 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Seems to me your boy has some moral relativity happening inside his own heart there. Would you treat others in the manner of chattel? Does loving your neighbor entail forcing them to work from sunup to sundown without compensation outside of food and shelter, lacking the freedom to come and go as they please, even lacking the freedom to refuse your offer?  Well, Jesus apparently thought that was a good deal, because as we've seen already, he counseled slaves to "chillax, brotha, love your master and obey him as you would me".

The answer to all those questions, of course, is no. Which is precisely why honestly believing that Jesus condoned slavery seems very strange to me.

When Jesus told us to turn the other cheek if we get slapped, do you think He meant it's moral to slap someone? When He told us to give someone our shirt if they steal our coat, do you think He meant it's moral to steal?

What are you on about? Jesus said treat others as you'd have them treat you, and yet he also says treat your slavemaster like you do your god in heaven ... but quite frankly, would you be kind to a man who had stolen your freedom? Would you worship a man who controlled every aspect of your life as a whim?

And more to the point, why would Jesus give this advice to slaves? Methinks Jesus wants folks who are accustomed to such self-abnegation. Methinks ole Jesus wants folks who value that sort of slave mentality.

(June 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Perhaps I'm wrong here and forgive me if I am. But I feel as though you are being dishonest in this. I feel as though you are *wanting* to be able to say "Jesus condoned slavery."

Nonsense. You have to understand how to infer facts from what is written. You, who have throughout this thread have told everyone else that interpretation is required to understand the Bible, are now arguing that you aren't allowed to interpret the actions of Jesus in the context of his times.

Nonsense. Rexy is right, your mental gymnastics are hurting my back.

(June 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And so you are ignoring everything else He taught and just relying on one paragraph addressed where He doesn't order them to run away or fight back. I think that if you were being completely objective and completely honest, you would not be doing this. I don't understand why you would have a desire to do this. Again, forgive me if I'm wrong about you here, but please clarify.

Because you are ignoring this inconvenient paragraph in order to maintain your perspective on your Savior. You are quite literally ignoring a salient fact about his behavior in the face of what you yourself have condemned in order to preserve your image of him.

In other words ... as I've said to you several times already ... you are cherry-picking the Bible in order to support your own morality which has already been established. You are ignoring those parts which contravene your preferred view.

That doesn't make you a bad person, but it doesn't make you a convincing person, either.

If you want to convince me that you have even the smallest understanding of the Jesus you worship, you will need to account for all his actions, not just claim the ones which make him look good. Until then, meh ... you're a Christian dodging questions on an internet forum -- color me shocked.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:09 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But if you steal because it is the only way you'll be able to save a person, your culpability will be greatly lessened, if not completely eliminated.

And that is subjective morality.

No. This is what the Church refers to as subjective culpability. The Catechism specifically rejects the notion of subjective morality/moral relativism, using those exact terms.

---

(June 21, 2015 at 10:12 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I feel like at this point, if I post it here, a ton of the members from this forum may join with the sole intention of antagonizing the Catholic members to see what happens. It wouldn't be fair to those people if I did that. Especially since Randy and I are on there.

Nice of you to assume we're all a bunch of uncivilized animals. Or, is it because you're afraid your claims won't stand up on inspection?

I don't assume any of you would be disrespectful, I just don't want to take that chance at other people's expense. It just wouldn't be right. There may be other people reading this who are not even members of this forum. I don't know these people.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 9:33 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Actually, I'll allow this.  Even if we discourage links to outside forums and blogs for new members, in this case, it only makes sense for the discussion.

I appreciate the exception but I am going to choose not to do this.

I feel like at this point, if I post it here, a ton of the members from this forum may join with the sole intention of antagonizing the Catholic members to see what happens. It wouldn't be fair to those people if I did that. Especially since Randy and I are on there.

I know neither of you would be so disrespectful as to do that, but I don't know who else is reading these posts.

With that being said, since I will not provide you with evidence, you are, of course, free to not take my word for it. I apologize.

Feel free to PM me this site.  I will not share it with anyone here, nor will I violate its rules.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The answer to all those questions, of course, is no. Which is precisely why honestly believing that Jesus condoned slavery seems very strange to me.

When Jesus told us to turn the other cheek if we get slapped, do you think He meant it's moral to slap someone? When He told us to give someone our shirt if they steal our coat, do you think He meant it's moral to steal?

What are you on about? Jesus said treat others as you'd have them treat you, and yet he also says treat your slavemaster like you do your god in heaven ... but quite frankly, would you be kind to a man who had stolen your freedom? Would you worship a man who controlled every aspect of your life as a whim?

And more to the point, why would Jesus give this advice to slaves? Methinks Jesus wants folks who are accustomed to such self-abnegation. Methinks ole Jesus wants folks who value that sort of slave mentality.

(June 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Perhaps I'm wrong here and forgive me if I am. But I feel as though you are being dishonest in this. I feel as though you are *wanting* to be able to say "Jesus condoned slavery."

Nonsense.  You have to understand how to infer facts from what is written.  You, who have throughout this thread  have told everyone else that interpretation is required to understand the Bible, are now arguing that you aren't allowed to interpret the actions of Jesus in the context of his times.

Nonsense.  Rexy is right, your mental gymnastics are hurting my back.

(June 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And so you are ignoring everything else He taught and just relying on one paragraph addressed where He doesn't order them to run away or fight back. I think that if you were being completely objective and completely honest, you would not be doing this. I don't understand why you would have a desire to do this. Again, forgive me if I'm wrong about you here, but please clarify.

Because you are ignoring this inconvenient paragraph in order to maintain your perspective on your Savior.  You are quite literally ignoring a salient fact about his behavior in the face of what you yourself have condemned in order to preserve your image of him.

In other words ... as I've said to you several times already ... you are cherry-picking the Bible in order to support your own morality which has already been established.  You are ignoring those parts which contravene your preferred view.

That doesn't make you a bad person, but it doesn't make you a convincing person, either.

If you want to convince me that you have even the smallest understanding of the Jesus you worship, you will need to account for all his actions, not just claim the ones which make him look good.  Until then, meh ... you're a Christian dodging questions on an internet forum -- color me shocked.

Parker's Tan,

I give you my interpretation of that paragraph, and you respond with telling me you don't believe that this is actually my honest interpretation and that I'm deliberately cherry picking. I don't know what else to tell you. We cannot have a discussion about this if you don't believe I am being honest. At least I questioned your honesty and asked you to correct me if I'm wrong, rather than just assuming you were being dishonest and using that as my argument.

No problem. I am not looking for apologies. I am merely saying that I cannot have a productive discussion with someone who assumes I am being dishonest and using that as an argument.

I will point out that you never did answer my questions about the slapping of the cheek and the stealing of the coat.

---

(June 21, 2015 at 10:28 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 10:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I appreciate the exception but I am going to choose not to do this.

I feel like at this point, if I post it here, a ton of the members from this forum may join with the sole intention of antagonizing the Catholic members to see what happens. It wouldn't be fair to those people if I did that. Especially since Randy and I are on there.

I know neither of you would be so disrespectful as to do that, but I don't know who else is reading these posts.

With that being said, since I will not provide you with evidence, you are, of course, free to not take my word for it. I apologize.

Feel free to PM me this site.  I will not share it with anyone here, nor will I violate its rules.

will do.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 10:09 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: And that is subjective morality.

No. This is what the Church refers to as subjective culpability. The Catechism specifically rejects the notion of subjective morality/moral relativism, using those exact terms.

And that is semantics. If the morality of an action is in any way dependent on the situation, that's subjective morality. Play all the word games you want, it doesn't change a thing.

(June 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Nope Wrote: It is understandable why rape and slavery are part of your list but why theft? I could imagine situations in which stealing would be more moral than letting your children starve.

The act of stealing, in and of itself, is an inherently immoral action.

But if you steal because it is the only way you'll be able to save a person, your culpability will be greatly lessened, if not completely eliminated.

What about this is objective, then?

(June 21, 2015 at 10:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I give you my interpretation of that paragraph, and you respond with telling me you don't believe that this is actually my honest interpretation and that I'm deliberately cherry picking.

I'm not saying your cherry-picking is deliberate. We all suffer bias, at one level or another.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't know what else to tell you. We cannot have a discussion about this if you don't believe I am being honest. At least I questioned your honesty and asked you to correct me if I'm wrong, rather than just assuming you were being dishonest and using that as my argument.

I'm sorry if you thought I was doubting your integrity. I am not. I am saying that you can cherry-pick without understanding it to be happening.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No problem. I am not looking for apologies. I am merely saying that I cannot have a productive discussion with someone who assumes I am being dishonest and using that as an argument.

I haven't done this.

(June 21, 2015 at 10:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I will point out that you never did answer my questions about the slapping of the cheek and the stealing of the coat.

I've been largely on my phone the last couple of days, and I often miss more posts because of that. Might you point me to those questions that I may answer them for you?

(June 21, 2015 at 10:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 10:28 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Feel free to PM me this site.  I will not share it with anyone here, nor will I violate its rules.

will do.

I tried to register there, and got the message that they were not accepting new registrations:

(June 21, 2015 at 11:17 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No. This is what the Church refers to as subjective culpability. The Catechism specifically rejects the notion of subjective morality/moral relativism, using those exact terms.

And that is semantics. If the morality of an action is in any way dependent on the situation, that's subjective morality. Play all the word games you want, it doesn't change a thing.

You do not understand. Let me use the more obvious example that I used earlier to explain this to someone else.

An insane person goes into psychotics and kills 10 people at the mall.

The next day, a perfectly sane person, after much premeditation, goes into  different mall and kills 10 people.

In both cases, the objective act of killing 10 people is immoral.  

But the first person's culpability is less than the second person. This doesn't mean the act is any less immoral, it just means the person's culpability is lessened.

How do you define "culpability", if not in terms of moral responsibility?