What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Jenny A]

Randy,

Nobody missed the point that slavery was limited to six years ( as if that makes it ok). Yes the slave could leave after 6 years unless the slave owner gave him a wife which they always would do, If he chose to leave he would leave his wife and family behind who would remain slaves. If he chose to stay with his family he would remain a slave for life as well as his children and their children and so on and so on. What slave owner did was make a slave chose between his family and his freedom, which is incredibly sick. If you are going to defend this disgusting mistreatment of human beings then let me be the first to say, Fuck You!

Not to mention that the six year rule only applied to Hebrew slaves owned by Hebrews.  There was no time limit for foreign slaves owned by Hebrews.  Compare Leviticus 25:44-45 which deals with non-Hebrew slaves with Exodus 21:1-5 which specifies Hebrew slaves.  The six year rule also didn't apply to Hebrew girls sold into slavery by their fathers though that's rather complicated as in that cause the slavery is in part a kind of concubinage. Exodus 21:7-11

[SteelCurtain]

If you are going to defend this disgusting mistreatment of human beings then let me be the first to say, Fuck You!

Already did it.

[Catholic_Lady]

By talking about slavery and not saying one tiny thing against it, in the only opportunity he would ever have it seems, Jesus is at least saying it is "Ok" in my opinion. The bible is very quick to tell you what to do and what not to do on other matters. His refusal to do so here is easy to understand when you consider that slavery was simply not seen as immoral back then.

Like I said, though He didn't specifically address slavery, He told us "love your enemy," and "love your neighbor as yourself." and "treat others how you want them to treat you."

He probably didn't specifically address rape either, as well as other specific things. But like slavery, I think that's a given... considering his commandment to love.

I don't think any honest person could read the entire life of Jesus and come out of it with the take way that He condones enslaving people.

[Mr.wizard]

Randy,

Nobody missed the point that slavery was limited to six years ( as if that makes it ok). Yes the slave could leave after 6 years unless the slave owner gave him a wife which they always would do, If he chose to leave he would leave his wife and family behind who would remain slaves. If he chose to stay with his family he would remain a slave for life as well as his children and their children and so on and so on. What slave owner did was make a slave chose between his family and his freedom, which is incredibly sick. If you are going to defend this disgusting mistreatment of human beings then let me be the first to say, Fuck You!

Not to mention that the six year rule only applied to Hebrew slaves owned by Hebrews.  There was no time limit for foreign slaves owned by Hebrews.  Compare Leviticus 25:44-45 which deals with non-Hebrew slaves with Exodus 21:1-5 which specifies Hebrew slaves.  The six year rule also didn't apply to Hebrew girls sold into slavery by their fathers though that's rather complicated as in that cause the slavery is in part a kind of concubinage. Exodus 21:7-11

Absolutely, Thank you for pointing that out!

[Randy Carson]

Randy,

Nobody missed the point that slavery was limited to six years ( as if that makes it ok). Yes the slave could leave after 6 years unless the slave owner gave him a wife which they always would do, If he chose to leave he would leave his wife and family behind who would remain slaves. If he chose to stay with his family he would remain a slave for life as well as his children and their children and so on and so on. What slave owner did was make a slave chose between his family and his freedom, which is incredibly sick. If you are going to defend this disgusting mistreatment of human beings then let me be the first to say, Fuck You[emphasis added]!

Another mature response. ^ Sheesh...I feel like I'm in high school again.

I'm not defending anything. I'm explaining it...and why it is not as black and white as you anti-christers seem to believe. The Israelites were a stubborn, stiff-necked people. Here are a few assessments from various points in Israel's history:

• Exodus 32:9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.
  
• Nehemiah 9:16 “But they, our ancestors, became arrogant and stiff-necked, and they did not obey your commands.
  
• Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
  

From Moses to Nehemiah to Stephen...you can see what God was dealing with. Consequently, God had to bring the Israelites along slowly...forming His people little by little...weaning them away from false gods and other beliefs and customs.

Here's a classic from Jesus:

Matthew 19
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “[b]Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Catch that?

Moses permitted the people to divorce but Jesus commanded us to step up our game.

Same with slavery. It was permitted, but now it's not. We've been molded by God.[/b]

[Mr.wizard]

By talking about slavery and not saying one tiny thing against it, in the only opportunity he would ever have it seems, Jesus is at least saying it is "Ok" in my opinion. The bible is very quick to tell you what to do and what not to do on other matters. His refusal to do so here is easy to understand when you consider that slavery was simply not seen as immoral back then.

Like I said, though He didn't specifically address slavery, He told us "love your enemy," and "love your neighbor as yourself."

He probably didn't specifically address rape either, as well as other specific things. But like slavery, I think that's a given... considering his commandment to love.

I don't think any honest person could read the entire life of Jesus and come out of it with the take way that He condones enslaving people.

He is god right? The same guy from the old testament? The same old testament that not only endorses slavery but gives specific instruction on it?

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok. I appreciate you having the patience with me here, so thank you.

So my take away from this in regards to your views is, there is no concrete, real right/wrong. There is only whatever a particular society deems fit. If a society thinks an act is moral, it is moral. If a society thinks an act is immoral, it's immoral.

Even something like setting a little girl on fire for getting raped cannot be considered objectively immoral, according to your views.

I obviously don't agree, but I can honestly say that I understand why someone who doesn't believe in a higher being would think this. In fact, it makes more sense that you do think this way if you don't believe in a higher power.

Fair enough. Thank you for the discussion on this, and I respect your views.

---

Well, first it obviously wasn't in line with what God said because Jesus is God and Jesus told them to stop.

Second, I'm really embarrassed by this but I still don't understand lol.

Youre saying that if morality was truly objective and those men were indeed in the wrong for stoning the woman, Jesus would have no basis for telling them they were in the wrong? I don't get it.

Randy Carson, do you understand?

---

Oh gosh... I'm sorry  

---

YES. This is what I wanted to post but didn't know if it would be against the rules.

You seem to still be missing the point, if morality were truly objective you would not have two different societies with different sets of morals. The fact that you have two groups of people who cant agree on the morality of raping and burning people only proves that morality is subjective.

The reason you think I'm missing the point is because you don't understand my point.

I think that certain things are immoral becuse God made them that way. So, regardless of whether a society thinks it's moral to set a little girl on fire for being raped, it is still immoral because it goes against the laws of God. The society who thinks this is moral, is wrong.

[Metis]

By talking about slavery and not saying one tiny thing against it, in the only opportunity he would ever have it seems, Jesus is at least saying it is "Ok" in my opinion. The bible is very quick to tell you what to do and what not to do on other matters. His refusal to do so here is easy to understand when you consider that slavery was simply not seen as immoral back then.

Like I said, though He didn't specifically address slavery, He told us "love your enemy," and "love your neighbor as yourself." and "treat others how you want them to treat you."

He probably didn't specifically address rape either, as well as other specific things. But like slavery, I think that's a given... considering his commandment to love.

I don't think any honest person could read the entire life of Jesus and come out of it with the take way that He condones enslaving people.

That seems a very odd thing for a Catholic to say Catholic_Lady, whenever I have visited Catholic Forums they usually deny that slavery itself is immoral (if you go to more conservative ones or even SSPX they usually go further and say feudalism/serfdom/absolute monarchy are the only Godly Catholic forms of governance.

I don't see how the Catholic Church can say slavery is immoral, when the Synod of Gangra said anyone who called for the abolition of it was Anathema, several popes have owned slaves (Alexander VI actually granted permission to the Spanish to enslave the inhabitants of South America!) and in more recent times the Pope actually sided with the US confederacy, stating that anyone who thought slavery was immoral was against God. (If you look into the campaign against slavery you'll actually find it was led by protestants and one of it's greatest enemies was no other than the Catholic Church. Look at St Martin de Pores, who was basically made a saint for being a submissive slave and respectful to whitey!)

By all means I agree slavery is immoral, but for most of it's history (until the 1970's to be more precise) Catholicism has held that slavery is instituted by God and that some people are just better than others.

[robvalue]

It's nice that you think it is a given that Jesus was against slavery. I certainly can't agree. You find ways to make the text say what you want it to say, which is what everyone does. As long as you come to the conclusion slavery is wrong, I don't care how you do it Your morality is superior to the bible.

Jesus didn't talk about rape though and then not say anything bad about it. He didn't talk about what you should do while being raped, and how to respect the person who is raping you. Of course you'd like to see it as "obvious" but that long ago, you can't take much for granted morality wise.

You really don't need the bible or the church to tell you right from wrong, as you have demonstrated many times already!

[Randy Carson]

I'm interested in what atheists think, and I would have no problem with you posting passages from Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins as you think appropriate. As I said to Nestor in the Gary Habermas Q & A thread, I would LOVE to go hear a good debate between Ehrman and a skilled Christian representative.

Still the same mistake of lumping all atheists together. Personally I don't give a shit about what Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins think. They're not my role models. What matters are my own thoughts.

Okay. I don't agree with everything William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas think, either. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't learn something from them...OR from Ehrman, et al.