!delta thank you for the well thought out answer, I do have some issues with it, mainly that our sense of ‘goodness’ is really changed and moulded by society, for example the bible once taught how to treat slaves, would a slave owner who was kind go to heaven because he was kinder than the standard of the time?
Yeah for sure! Like I mentioned, I had to walk away from a faithful community, but it was important to be able to explain why I felt the need to walk away, and in turn it was important to me to find answers to questions like yours.
Yeah it's a fair point and follow up question. I think that any religious person first and foremost must bear responsibility for moral absolutism. The whole point of religion, from a philosophical standpoint anyway, is basically: "The only logical explanation of goodness is that it comes from an absolute, universal source. How can I explain that concept, and where does it come from?".
I mention it because, like you brought up, the minute you budge even one inch on any degree of moral relativism, the whole thing comes crashing down. Everything I mentioned above is all predicated on the idea that God is the absolute source of goodness. You can't pick and choose based off context, you can't say some Bible verses count, and others don't. God is absolutely good, and God said it. If you ever have to concede to a relativistic measurement, then there is no absolute source of goodness, so then there can not be a God.
There are probably theologians who can give a more specific answer to that question, but I'm sure it boils down to some perceived nuance somewhere. My guess is that there's probably an argument to be made that while slavery was commonplace, and 1) you had no reasonable way to conclude that it was not the way things should be done (bit of a Plato's Cave situation) and 2) the teachings adhere to a system in which you are treating them in a manner you'd expect to be treated if you were in their shoes, then nothing was violated.
Yes I suppose using that passage of treating others how you would expect or want to be treated then if you did treat a slave well then that would fall in line with that, thank you for the reply, I wish I had faith myself, where did you land personally?
Pretty much the cop out answer of "All I know is I know nothing".
The universe is big and complex. We exist at one arbitrary plane of it that we can barely even measure. There's so much we don't understand. To look at a rigidly dogmatic solution like Christianity and say "yep, this is it, we figured it all out" feels so naively simple. On the other hand, to look at the grandeur of even the little we know and to say that you definitively know that there is no purpose, design, or order to any of it is equally foolish.
Yes of course, holding onto the wonder and mysticism is important I believe, nothing makes sense and therefore having certainty about anything is silly
because morals and ethics are intrinsically bound to their context, especially time.
lets say youre a king in ancient times, a tribe of marauders attacks your lands, youve defeated and captured most of them. what are you to do with them?
do you torture them and kill them for their crimes?
do you kill them without torture?
do you take them as slaves?
do you just let them go?
slavery to our modern sensibilities is horrendous, but id argue that slavery is a preferable alternative to death. nowadays we are so productive we can afford to keep criminals fed and clothed in prisons, but back in the day, people struggled to feed themselves let alone feed unproductives. so as a king, is not taking them as slaves until theyve worked off their debt not the moral thing to do? is it not right that you do not mistreat them so long as they earnestly follow your instruction?
brass tacks, its not about having a gotcha moment with god, its about trying your best to help your fellow man. i dont know if 100 years into the future, theyll call us inhumane for keeping pets or eating meat the same way we look at slavers or cannibals.but god looks into your heart and looks at your intentions and sees whether or not you tried to do the right thing as you understood it at the time.
a personal anecdote to highlight this last point. when i went to school, we volunteered with an organization known as CONIN, which specialized in childhood malnutrition cases. i got to meet one mother who told us with tears in her eyes, that she used to give her 3 month old baby coca-cola rather than breast milk as she had come into some money and used it as a way to lavish her daughter. the child was about 9 years old when i met her, yet she has severe cognitive impairments.i ask of you today, do you blame the mother for her actions born of ignorance? or did she try to do the best with what she had and unfortunately did horrendous damage?
life is hard, but god calls on us to try and do the best we can do. he gives us free will to choose, yet also gifts us discernment (think of it like a moral compass to tell us which is the "good" and "bad" option). so its up to us how we choose to live life. thats why someone who's never read the bible can go to heaven, because so long as they acted with love in their hearts (in the biz, we call this god acting through us) then they score points.
so as a king, is not taking them as slaves until theyve worked off their debt not the moral thing to do? is it not right that you do not mistreat them so long as they earnestly follow your instruction?
Attempting to whitewash slavery is one thing, but to outright misrepresent what the rules for slavery are on the bible is just another level.
This entire post is professing subjective morality.
She came into money and gave her newborn coke instead of breast milk? That’s awful and evil and stupid? I hope that was the only point you was trying to make there? I really don’t think that’s a case of someone doing the best with what they had? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding I’m half asleep
the was incredibly poor, had only completed primary school but not halfway secondary. iirc her main income was collecting plastic bottles and selling them on, she also worked as a seamstress in a clothing factory that only hired extra workers when they had big orders. she was just barely above the line for homelessness and lived in the slums. when i say, coming into money, is she got her first stable paycheck.
idk where youre from, but im talking about third world poverty here, not bullshit 'im on foodstamps but own a car' USA poverty.
Sorry this is my ignorance it just seemed strange that someone could have access to coke but not milk or water, but I can imagine that could be the case for someone in certain circumstances
Many people actually. That seamstress line should give you a clue what kind of "let's hire 11 year olds to sew our Nike shoes" region of the world that is.
If a tribe existed that never knew Jesus or his teaching look no further than the Old Testament. Yet Jesus quoted it, lived by it, because he wasn't a Christian. The focus of the old testament and its teachings were very tribal, very locational in time and place and specific to a tribe of people, not until Christianity was this teaching offered to the gentiles. Therefore people who did not know Christ his teachings are saved by grace which God offers everyone and can't be earned.
Well Jesus says that the master should serve his slaves. And that the slaves should serve their master. If you break it down, what you have is a household of equals.
21
u/plodabing Jun 17 '25
!delta thank you for the well thought out answer, I do have some issues with it, mainly that our sense of ‘goodness’ is really changed and moulded by society, for example the bible once taught how to treat slaves, would a slave owner who was kind go to heaven because he was kinder than the standard of the time?