Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, we know for sure that Clemens left Missouri and sat out the Civil War in California. We also know he didn't write any anti-slavery work until safely after slavery had been thoroughly settled as a national issue.
IOW, he didn't stay in Missouri and "fight the good fight" from within the belly of the beast, or even from a safe distance while the beast was still alive, but only after the beast had been killed good and dead by someone else.
I don't judge Clemens harshly for that. But I'm not going to pin a medal on him for outstanding moral achievement, either.
This basically means you disagree with what Paul was trying to do in his society and believe that Paul should have tried to do what you think he should have done.
Yes, Samuel might have been too scared for his life and/or comfortable and/or commited to not killing to "more properly" fight against slavery, but Paul was purporting himself to be defiantly suicidal, yet didn't condemn openly owning another human being as much as he condemned art/statues and freedom of religion. So one might have only written a book where the protagonist helps a runaway slave, and then sat back to safeguard his life, the other fought till suicide by proxy/capital punishment yet didn't even support anything other than his religious campaign for services, tithes, and offerings.
Saul and Mark Twain "should" have done the most moral thing, irrespective of my authority. Unless there is no "true" morality, in which case they would be free to do as they saw fit (including listening to supposed spirit-monsters out of fear or lust). Yet I still think Mark Twain was both smarter and nicer than Paul (neither of which I know beyond some of the things they have written), and thus, Mark Twain teaches better morals in his writing.
As we are aware, they were writing for different purposes and to different audiences. I still think that (if we trust Paul about what he proclaimed) he employed more fallacy in his believes, and more nastiness in his character.
Yes I can I understand the different purposes.
And regarding Paul, I think we can trust Paul. Why? He is not a liar and he didn't dissemble. And regarding nastiness, I'suggest Christ himslf wasn't an endearing personality either in a respect. He did realize that in the course of his life he had to 'scramble eggs' to get his souffle. He did that raging through the Temple. Sometimes people get mad and have to let it out.
And regarding Paul, I think we can trust Paul. Why? He is not a liar and he didn't dissemble. And regarding nastiness, I'suggest Christ himslf wasn't an endearing personality either in a respect. He did realize that in the course of his life he had to 'scramble eggs' to get his souffle. He did that raging through the Temple. Sometimes people get mad and have to let it out.
Saul of Tarsus was surely a flip-flipper with biased interests though. So I don't know how much to trust the sincerity of someone with such likely factionist agendas as would have likely been his for being a person in the business of religion and grouping. I don't know how to properly justify being too sure about him.
You are right about scrambling a few eggs, but violence is never really the answer as much as is the more tedious practice of education.
Two different situations. Both in societies where the govenment required that excaped slaves be returned. One where the person with the burden (Huck) could be sure of disastrous results for the subject, and the other where the person (Paul) could be sure that his injunction to the owner would be follwed with treatment as a returned brother. True that the economic condition was not considered in Paul's case, and in fact would not come to general agreement for 1800 years, but if Christian treatment of slaves had not been egregiously different from that Paul required, it might never have come to that light.
It is true that Woolman at least of the early proponents of freedom did not have to deal with the kind of treatment that was common outside the Quakers, but it also took him decades to convince the Society that owning another person was wrong in its own right.
"Sometimes God works by slow degrees" Amazing Grace (movie.)
Exactly, Paul was insulting the Hellenic Roman government and telling those who had sold themselves to him that they should separate from Secular Courts and create Ivory sects, yet that they as Christians could hypocritically judge anyone, since they were supposing to be judges over men and angels (gods). The letter as a whole argues for Church unify (something Christians didn't listen to) but he specifically supports hypocritical judgement of nonChristians by Christians.
Who had sold themselves to him? Seriously? You think that was his way of trying to preserve slavery?
Quote:
Omnipotence and omniscience are highly self-contradicting.
Nonsense.
Quote:
However, if they were worked out perfectly by lowering their illogical extent, then (or perhaps even if left illogical) we would need to show a way that morality wasn't simply subjective dictation from this most-capable and most-knowing being. If it was subjective dictation then this being would be working from a principle of ethical egoism and might=right, which clash with other principles such as fairness and equality. If others disagreed with these selfish principles, "God" would have no moral ground to stand on, and would have to rely on force and violence (even if passive aggressive violence such as letting someone suffer in hell with no purpose (such as education) other that punishment. The fact that a human would be less likely than a superhuman to define morality correctly would only mean that there was a correct morality which was higher than this supposed God's dictations. Knowing more and being stronger wouldn't give this god any rights to bully others, if morality is God's subjective dictation than anyone could claim equality in subjectivity (personal goals and preferences). If this god was following a true and objective morality (as a correct messenger of true objective morality), then such better morality would be higher than the messenger. The Hindus often say that Vishnu is Karma (personal and thus subjective God is/has also an Objective code), but such an idea is self-contradicting... I'm sure you might be fine with irrational assertions however, since they don't affect you personally (such as "fully man, fully god" which is as internally inconsistent as "fully statue and fully god"). Either way, If morality is God's (as according to you) dictation, then it isn't really true right and wrong, but is instead merely dictation. if there was any true good and bad, then God would be subject of good, and below it. As it stands, you don't think good and bad objectively exist, only power.
If I can sum up this large block paragraph of rant....it's that you feel that either:
1. Morality is objective and exists outside of any influence from this world, or of God.....
or
2. God has subjectively decided what is moral and isn't. Is that correct?
In any event, I honestly don't care what you think about it. I didn't ask you if you thought God was moral. I'm trying to find out why you believe you have the ability to declare another culture, in another time to get "moral", or "immoral".
Quote:
I'm not changing the subject at all, I was responding to your claims that we can't talk about Roman slavery being bad, and that morality can't stand as an argument on it's own merits, that it must be equated with dictations from the powerful and knowing, without regard for the subjectivity and worth of all of those involved. I was explaining the hypocrisy and fallacy.
So what IS your source of morality? How do you decide what is moral and what isn't?
I don't know how to properly justify being too sure about him.
Maybe to put yourself in his shoes during that particular time of the Empire might help to understand Paul's motivation?
A runaway save at that time well was one of the worst things that could happen to a human being.It would be 'curtains' immediately if he got caught. And I'd think to expect Paul to fight the Empire on slavery can be looked at as ludicrous since it was embedded in the culture as night and day.
And when he did send Onesimus back didn't Paul send him back as a 'beloved brother' to Philomen? The context appears to link 'master and slave' into a different type of relationship than before. Interesting later on is that there was an Onesimus who later became Ephesus' bishop. Same individual, that slave and runaway? It is not apparent but it hints at something going in with Paul's actions to Philomen and brings out another compelling story.
It certainly isn't the bible with its horrible teachings of right and wrong.
But you disagree with that.
So, please advise us if your mortality comes from the OT, the NT or both. Are there any biblical teachings on morality we should ignore?
This isn't about me, cupper. This is about the nonsensical idea that you and others are attempting to judge another culture in another time, but can't even tell me what your source for morality is, or how to define it.
This isn't about me, cupper. This is about the nonsensical idea that you and others are attempting to judge another culture in another time, but can't even tell me what your source for morality is, or how to define it.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
This isn't about me, cupper. This is about the nonsensical idea that you and others are attempting to judge another culture in another time, but can't even tell me what your source for morality is, or how to define it.
Yet you seen perfectly content in being guided by writings from that time and place.
Amazing.
I don't need any one else to tell me that if I don't want something bad done to me, then I shouldn't do anything bad to someone else. Which is what four of the ten commandments are saying.
Funny that they forget other things I see as important to uphold morality. Like opposition to slavery or child abuse. No, your moral guidance is more concerned about statues, competing gods and kowtowing to the invisible and undefined.
Or do you get your morals elsewhere?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
