|
>I'm merely claiming objective truth exists. What are you >claiming?
All truth is subjective. Even if you disagree with my pov, surely you've picked that up as my opinion by now!
>>If there is a 'universal truth' it >>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. > >Is the sentence you just expressed universally true? If you >say yes, you've contradicted yourself. Your statement >contradicts itself. If you say no, then you're saying it's >"false" that "a universal truth can't come from or be >expressed by humans". And if that's false, then it's true >that "a universal truth can come from or be expressed by >humans" and you have contradicted your original statement >again.
Of course I say no! You're tying yourself up with words! There are only subjective truths (including this!)
> >>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of >other >>HUMANS. > >Not the kidnapper. > >>Call it emotional but when an individual is kidnapped, >>people come together in order to help, > >The kidnapper doesn't.
The irony with the kidnapper is that he is fully aware of the cultural sentiment against it. That is why he kidnaps!
>>But it builds our very institutions. We don't need a >religious >>point of reference or arrogant appeal to 'objective truth' >for >>that. > >Without God, there is no right and wrong. >
There's the arrogance I'm talking about.
>>The >>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough >>shit! Majority view wins the day > > >So might makes right? >
Lemon Kid asked the same question. In response I think it does. Might made slavery right. Subsequent might made slavery wrong.
>>Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery. > > >Would you explain to me how you arrive at that?
*Swipe*
Quotations by learned men from the 19th century: " was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2 "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA). "The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3
Overview: The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been "sanctioned in the Bible." They argued that:
Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice. The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4 Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism. Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.
Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained.
*Me again!*
This article is very useful. Firstly, it shows that the Bible jusified slavery in the eyes of the pro-slavery religious and political leaders.
Secondly, it highlights the religious opponents of slavery, which shows that religion is subjective.
>>A large section of the church now promotes gay clergy. What >is homosexuality? >God's objective truth, or the church's >subjective opinion? > >Your question doesn't even make sense. "Truth" in what, that >homosexuality exists? Of course it does. What are you >asking? >
I apologise for being unclear. I'll rephrase it. Is homosexuality ok in the eyes of God?
If so, why has the Church traditionally condemned it?
If not, why does a section of the Church now condone it?
|