Well, apes can use sign language and have been known to teach it to each other without encouragement, so I don't think it is so much projection there.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is cool. It's always fun when I interact with my dog and we seem to have some kind of connection. I do wonder, though, how much of such things is an anthropomorphic projection. With my dog, it often seems the end game is always food.
The point is still the same. I'll rephrase: desire doesn't negate morality. If someone desires to steal, it is still wrong.
Yes. Your scenario is just an attempt to play to sentimentality ... ahh, look at the cute little girl, give her whatever she wants. Why wasn't it the ugly old bag lady who smells and drools on herself and annoys you while you're out trying to shop? But anyway ...
... what if the child steals from a second child who is also starving. Now is it wrong?
The root problem is that the children were starving in the first place. Stealing doesn't somehow fix that. But tell me, are you advocating survival as the ultimate goal? So one can do whatever one pleases as long as it supports survival?
Are we really going to do this? Verse by verse until you think you've trapped me?
1. The slavery spoken of in these verses is not the kind that was practiced in America. It typically involved someone who needed to pay off a financial debt.
2. You can't take one verse in isolation. What about v.1 or v.16? And all the others insisting that people be treated with dignity. Should someone find themselves in a situation where they can't pay their debts, the holder of those debts is under all kinds of obligations to treat them well ... or do you think people aren't obligated to pay back the holders of their debt?
Well, apes can use sign language and have been known to teach it to each other without encouragement, so I don't think it is so much projection there.
The implication of debt isn't in that verse, you're adding what isn't there to make it more agreeable to your own sense of morality.
I don't know why you consider beating someone within an inch of their life "treating them with dignity" but as long as you're pulling bible passages, what's wrong with me doing the same?
As for stealing for survival...yes, I do think it's almost always going to be morally ok. I say almost because I can't imagine every case...there might be one I disagree with.
If you disagree with my comments on slavery in the Bible, then I guess you'll need to do a study on it and show me where I'm wrong.
[edit] BTW, the verse implies exactly what I was saying. Read the end of v.21.
I think you are misusing that verse, and I quoted additional context to explain why. If you think I have misused Exodus 20:15 (or, as noted above, comments on Biblical slavery) then you are free to do the same. That's the process. The game I'm not going to play is you cherry picking some other example if this one doesn't turn out as you expected.
So, the verse doesn't speak of "beating someone within an inch of their life". It says a master can't murder his slave, which is consistent with Exodus 20:13. Yes, that is an absolute.
At the same time, it allows for corporal punishment. That is also consistent with other verses (such as Proverbs 13:24). So, measured corporal punishment is also a moral absolute. When that punishment can be applied and to what degree requires applying yet other verses.
To that end, I'll simply note Deuteronomy 16:18.
So it's OK for one starving child to steal from another. Got it. Great system. [edit] And those who actually have rights to the food - are they allowed to fight back?
Well I'll tell you what Resha, if you're not prepared to defend the whole bible, that's fine with me. Just admit you only ascribe to the parts you like, and you're back to moral relativism with me. If however, you still hold fast to a list of moral absolutes, then just tell me you think it's morally right to own a person as property (for any reason, debt included) and beat that person (as long as they don't die...sorry, I saw nothing in there that said you couldn't just do it for fun).
To answer you're question about stealing, of course the owner can recoup their loss, it's entirely up to them.
Let me ask you this, since you seem most comfortable with the stealing example...what if a person were to steal something from you by making a legal claim to it and winning? The property is thereby, his, yet you know (or believe) it was wrongfully stolen from you. Is it ok for you to now steal this thing back from him? Would stealing be alright then?
There are a lot of situations that aren't covered. You're now trying to hold me to the "cover every scenario" definition...
And you bypassed my comment about the root of the problem. The root problem is that the child is starving in the first place (Isaiah 58:10).
If a child is starving an I somehow obligated to feed it?
I couldn't possibly feed every staving child.
"There are a lot of situations that aren't covered." What is one to do for situations not covered by your moral absolutes?
I've been awfully kind here in letting you dance around the slavery issue...but now I want an answer. Yes, you condone slavery as morally good as well as beating said slaves. No, slavery is wrong and you think people should never be property of other people. That's the law in your book. Take your pick.
You are.
You're right. So where do you draw the line? At tithing.
Again, Deuteronomy 16:18.
The Bible gives guidelines. As far as I know, the reasons are if someone owes you a financial debt, or if it is someone who was making war against you. There may be others, but I'm not aware of them. You are not allowed to kidnap people at random and enslave them (Exodus 21:16 as I pointed out to you earlier) as was done during American slavery. Further, there are conditions under which slaves must be freed (for example, if they pay their debt).
I never said I was making judgments of good and bad. We were talking of absolutes. So, yes, if someone owes me a debt or makes war on me, I feel it is acceptable to bind them in some way. It is a moral absolute. In American society there are restrictions on how I can do that. So now that I've answered your question, answer the questions I asked you in my last post. Are you judging me for this answer, or does your idea of "desire" allow me this? How are the ways the state is legally allowed to bind someone different than slavery?
Just to be clear...you think owning a person as property and beating them is morally acceptable. I don't wanna go on before we're clear on that.
Neither will we go on from here until you answer my question.
I am interpreting your phrase "morally acceptable" to mean "good" or at least that it's not bad. As I've already said, that was not part of the discussion. But since you're trying to drag these things in, I'll point out a few things:
1) In Mark 10:5 Jesus notes that some laws were written by Moses not because they are "good", but to deal with the nastiness of this world. Note that the definition we agreed on is proper conduct toward a purpose. So, marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment. But what if the husband abuses the wife? Yes, because of that nastiness divorce is allowed.
So, now, suppose someone owes you a debt or makes war on you. How do you deal with that person? What if the system under which you live says you make them a slave? Can a Christian use that system? The answer is yes, but there are rules about how to treat that slave. In fact, in the book of Philemon, Paul is telling Philemon he needs to treat Onesimus like a brother. Slavery is not an ideal to seek (just as a broken marriage is not an ideal to seek). It is the result of our sinful world, and the Bible is explaining proper conduct for that situation.
The system in the U.S. is slightly different, and I am supposed to deal with debt and war per the laws laid out by the U.S.
2) I also get the impression you are speaking of "beating" as if it is unjustified and some gleeful sadism by the owner. I've pointed out repeatedly that is an improper facetious translation and I'll not accept it.
I've already said that corporal punishment is acceptable discipline (post #124). Deuteronomy 25:1-3 stipulates that it should be proportional to the misbehavior. It further stipulates that if the one applying the punishment goes too far, they themselves should be punished.
If you're going to disagree with me (and I'm pretty sure you do, but your moral system is blocking you from saying it), then disagree with what I've written. You're not going to tell me how to interpret the Bible - you don't even believe it.
Your turn to answer.
Your big question is what?
Are you judging me for this answer, or does your idea of "desire" allow me this? How are the ways the state is legally allowed to bind someone different than slavery?
The more you argue for absolutism, the more you sound like a relativist.
I think that's because your view of it is what I might call absolutism squared. You're coming at it from a different direction than I am.
The Bible is a finite book - a finite number of words. Therefore, no matter how you want to slice it, the list of moral imperatives is a finite list. One of the items contained in that list is, "You shall not steal." That moral is in effect at all places and all times for all people.
That is different than saying absolutism defines what every person should do in every conceivable situation. That position requires an infinite book, which the Bible is not.
- - -
*Note: After the other 2 questions are answered, Ana, I'm a bit curious about your request that law be kept out of this. Note that in the case of Exodus 21:20-21, I pointed elsewhere for the 2 morals (murder is wrong, but corporal punishment is acceptable) in that verse. So is Exodus 21:20-21 a law or a moral? What's the difference? I've stewed over asking this before, but thought it might not be worth the churn.
You know, even if there was some kind if superior or objective morality, the subjective nature of how people think would prevent it from being applied objectively.
Concerning the OP ... how about a variation of the concept (for anyone still interested lol):
Would you go to prison for someone ? In other words, would you let yourself go to prison in place of someone else going there ? At what point would it matter to you if the person you were going there for was guilty of something or not ? At what point would you willingly forfeit months to years of your own life, letting yourself be placed in horrid conditions, for another person ?
You wife ?Depends on the person. I can only think of one I would for, regardless of guilt, or length of sentence.
Are you being patronizing?
I will say though, at least now you seem to be understanding the limits of your book...even if you haven't realized where that leads. For what good are moral absolutes if they do not describe everything and we're left to guess wrong and right for what isn't told to us? How could we possibly be expected to act morally then?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?