What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

You're expressing moral subjectivism when you tell me to stop looking at it through my 21st century white american male eyes....and that it may have been okay for them, then, to tell the story in that way...ostensibly as opposed to how it's not okay now. 

Yes, but listen carefully. I never said nothing is subjective. I said morality is not subjective. Since there is nothing immoral with the way people spoke, wrote, and told stories back then, you can't claim that I am contradicting myself. It's just a matter of understanding it.

---

I would be contradicting myself only if I said it was morally wrong to write and story tell in the way people did thousands of years ago. Which I never said.

You can't be both a moral objectivist and then claim that things were different in another time, that another culture's mores don't apply now. That's what Rhythm is saying.

---

Sure I can. Many things change over time. I do not believe morality is one of them. Nothing contradictory about that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Was it moral, then, to kill a person for pulling out of his brothers wife?  Was a story about a god killing a man for pulling out of his brothers wife moral, then? Has god ever, literally or allegorically, done anything "bad"? I can claim it, I will continue to claim it, I will continue to demonstrate it, and you -have- been contradicting yourself.

Disagreements of opinion only apply to matters of opinion. You and are are having a disagreement over fact. I'm unlikely to let it go, given the nature of your interactions thusfar on these boards.

[Jenny A]

If you believe the story about Onan in the OT was written word for word, literally as it happened, then yes, you are correct about the last sentence there. As I said, I believe the OT was written allegorically. I believe the point of this story was to teach that contraception is immoral, and that's an important point. But I do not believe God literally "killed" Onan, or that a man named Onan even existed. I cannot speak for those who think otherwise, though.

Whether there was an Onan or not, the interpretation of Onan by the church has always puzzled me.  It's been used to justify both prohibiting contraception (your interpretation) and also masturbation.  But both readings torture the actual story.

Jewish law required if a man died childless, his living brother must marry and have sex with his sister-in-law until she produced a son, and that the son must be raised as the heir of the dead brother:

5 When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband’s brother to her, 6 and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 But if the man has no desire to marry his brother’s widow, then his brother’s widow shall go up to the elders at the gate and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and speak to him. If he persists, saying, ‘I have no desire to marry her’, 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull his sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and declare, ‘This is what is done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 Throughout Israel his family shall be known as ‘the house of him whose sandal was pulled off.’

Deuteronomy 25:5-10 NRSVACE

Judah had two sons Er and Onan.  When god killed Er for wickedness, Judah told Onan to perform his duty to Er's wife by marrying her and raising thier first born child as Er's.  

It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and settled near a certain Adullamite whose name was Hirah. 2 There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; he married her and went in to her. 3 She conceived and bore a son; and he named him Er. 4 Again she conceived and bore a son whom she named Onan. 5 Yet again she bore a son, and she named him Shelah. She[a] was in Chezib when she bore him. 6 Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn; her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ 9 But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring to his brother. 10 What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

Genesis 38:1-12 NRSVACE


Onan spilled his seed because he did not want to give his child to his dead brother Er.  God was displeased and killed Onan.  Now, we know for certain that avoiding his duty to give a child to his brother was displeasing to god, because it was a violation of the law.  How do you get from there to declaring the method by which he broke the law to be bad under all circumstances.  If that were the case, you'd expect there to be a law in Deuteronomy prohibiting birth control. 

The Christian interpretations of this story are like reading a tale about how a man used a hunting rifle to kill his brother and was then hung, as a moral story about why we shouldn't shoot rifles.

[abaris]

I do not believe morality is one of them.

But morality does change. People back then, at Judea, found it perfectly all right and moral to stone people to death for extramarital sex. They also held slaves and felt morally justified in doing so. The irony even goes further, since in the 19th century, when the slave issue became virulent, both slave owners and abolishionists took their arguments from the bible.

Morality is always changing and hopefully to a more enlightened state than what was all right and considered moral 2000 years ago. If we as a society would still follow the moral code of these people, we would have a pretty dark time.

[Catholic_Lady]

You know, all I got from the above is 'everything different from how I do it is evil'. This kind of shit really doesn't suit you, CL.

Trust me, I do many things that are wrong. I am not a perfect person, and would never pretend to be.

---

The Old Testament isn't just filled with stories told by a Bronze Age people. It also has the laws that those people believed were created by an omnipotent, omniscient god. Some people believe that god was also omnibenevolent.

There are laws in the bible that supposedly came directly from god.


Deuteronomy 20:10-14

   

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

If this is an allegory then what does it teach us? If god is all powerful then why did he focus laws on not mixing fibers in clothes instead of not killing children or raping women?  Remember the mercy being extended to these towns people is forced enslavement. If god wasn't involved it would be an account of the brutality of ancient cultures.

I think that good people naturally gravitate toward the verses about loving others and showing kindness. Other, less kind people, seek out  the verses that are about revenge. It seems like each  type of person reads a different book but it is all the same bible.

Jesus came back and debunked many of those Hebrew Laws. The bible is not infallible. Especially the Old Laws of the OT.

---

I respect and understand you all's disagreement on this and would never judge anyone who felt differently.

I love these little nuggets of how you speak! True texan!

LOL! I wrote "yall's" at first and then changed because "you all's" looked just a tad more classy and less country.

[paulpablo]

Well what if a child has abducted 14 babies and has locked them away in a shed someplace and they're going to starve to death unless you get the information out of him of where the babies are.  If I knew the child had this information I'd be willing to use violence to get the information out of him.
As for slavery, sometimes it's been preferable to take slaves rather than just kill people on the battlefield or leave them to die.

But do you think it's objectively immoral to torture a child just for the hell of it? There are plenty of people out there who get off on that. If a culture was ok with this act, wouldn't you say that they are wrong?

Lol, sure, enslaving is better than neglecting and allowing to die, but wouldn't you say it's still objectively wrong? What about for the many societies who enslaved people by stealing them from their homes and not by "rescuing" them from the battle ground? They most certainly had no problem with that. To them, it was normal and not immoral at all.

Rape also applies.

I can't tell you what is universal or objective because between the two of us we can only agree on what we both think.  So if I think something is wrong and you think something is wrong, we still haven't revealed what is believed to be right or wrong by the other people on earth who have existed all throughout history. 
 As I said previously, I can see circumstances outside of my own experiences in life that would make child torture and slavery the right thing to do.
Definitely in the past it was seen as the right thing to do to put a child through lots of pain and hardship to enable him to cope better with the harsh reality of living, rituals and passages into manhood were quite torturous.
I wouldn't torture or enslave a child or rape anyone but I might do if I was in a different place and time in history.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Cath, jesus didn't come back and "debunk" anything...what you believe jesus did has nothing to do with debunking something, that's not what that word means.  The subjective morality of the judeo-christian belief structure simply changed as it's adherents changed, over time, as it -demonstrably- does with all of us, everywhere, in everytime. It doesn't actually matter if jesus did come back, and this is the -moment- when that subjective morality changed (which, btw, is in no way a factually accurate summary of the scenario, there was a sect moving from judaism towards what we now know as christianity before there was ever -any- christ, either as a being or as a story)......jesus simply communicated the -new- morality. The old morality was still morality, still moral, when those previous adherents held to it.

You and I (and apparently, Jesus) simply don't -agree- with that old morality. Except, of course, when you do...as when you opine upon the moral status of homosexuality, and contraception.

[Catholic_Lady]

Listen, I understand this makes very little sense to you all and doesn't hold much water at all unless you believe in God and believe that He had a special purpose for creating sex. I can't take God out of the picture here. I respect and understand you all's disagreement on this and would never judge anyone who felt differently.

What you fail to realize and probably can't realize when god is always at the forefront of your mind is the underlying message of controlling sexuality. It's a perfect way to control people, to keep them in line and make them feel sinful and wanting, since we speak about one of the most basic urges nature has to offer. And noone, at least while they are young, can refrain from having sexual thoughts.

Rest assured, I do not mean to control anyone. People can do as they please. I have certain moral beliefs, and I try to follow them. This is a personal decision, but people can do what they want. :

You are correct. Sexual thoughts are not in and of themselves immoral.They are expected and involuntary. Indulging in them can be immoral depending on the context.

[Longhorn]

You know, all I got from the above is 'everything different from how I do it is evil'. This kind of shit really doesn't suit you, CL.

Trust me, I do many things that are wrong. I am not a perfect person, and would never pretend to be.

Never said you were. Just saying this closed minded fear of everything different bullshit doesn't suit someone as seemingly kind as you.

[Catholic_Lady]

What I don't get is why you have to "choose" any particular denomination, like a political party, and settle for the one you agree with the most (or more likely, you just copied from those around you). You are then stuck with all of their proclamations of truth, whether or not you agree with them all.

Why not just be a christian and make up your own mind about what is moral and immoral?

Or even just be a theist, accept all the books we have are man made and very unlikely to be accurate portrayals of any kind of "god" and figure out what a good god would want you to do?

I follow what I believe to be true, which are the teachings of the Church.

Sometimes I don't like what is true, but if I believe it's true I try to follow it anyway. I don't really see the point in just following the things I like. I must admit I struggled with the Church's teaching on contraception for the first few years of my marriage. But looking back on it now, I am glad I remained faithful.