Nobody (including Moses) ever said eating shellfish is immoral. As I said, dietary restrictions have nothing to do with morality.
Not sure what “Real Bible” is a reference to…but why does something have to be “in the Bible” in order to make a morality judgment about it?
Birth control is intrinsically immoral because it distorts the nature and purpose of sexual union. The Catholic Church has written about this issue extensively and in great depth.
Really? How about the Sabbath.
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Since even God rested on the Sabbath, not quite.
Christians are quite happy to do the kind of work on the Sabbath that could be easily justified in the modern world, like turning on a light switch, but also real work which clearly violates the Sabbath.
Now if you just feel like redefining moral laws clearly set down (or some of them) as not moral, you need to explain why.
The Catholic Church claiming that something is immoral doesn’t automatically make it immoral for those that don’t belong to it.
Well, I did. Feel free to answer as well!
LOL, I don’t know what to think about the ‘zombies’. I’m not sure if the Church has ever really made a declarative statement about it. My question is, okay, so all these people rose from the dead and started walking around…Then what? Did they die again?
As an atheist, I find stuff like this priceless.
:dubious:…Me looking for where Jesus changed something…
What Christians may be “quite happy to do” is irrevelant. What are your qualifications in deciding what “clearly violates the Sabbath”?
I don’t, and I’m not. You are the one who asserted that Jesus redefined morality. You have not shown me how.
If the Catholic Church speaks for God, then yes it does. Whether you recognize that or not is your choice.
So violating God’s clear commandments is not necessarily immoral? Remember Christians can eat shellfish thanks to the convenient dream supposedly coming from God - not just because Jesus or his followers just decided it was okay.
I’m Jewish, so the real Bible is what you goyim call the OT. And I’m an atheist, so something being in the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with it being moral or not.
I can make secular ethical arguments about things. Murder is unethical - easy to show. Sex before marriage is not. Adultery - the kind involving lying - is.
Yes I know they have. And people die of AIDS thanks to it. Having just enough children so that you can support them is moral. Following Catholic law resulting in so many children that they go hungry is not.
And don’t tell me about Catholic “birth control”. Clearly it doesn’t work.
That most of the world is telling the priesthood to screw off, and using birth control, may very likely save our planet.
You asked for contradictions, I gave you contradictions, and you responded with
If you had no intention of addressing the contradictions in the Bible, you should have said so in the first place.
The one universal aspect to morality is subjectivity, and that is, yes, unchanging.
Whether you accept that it does or not is your personal opinion.
Saying that the Sabbath was made for man, and thus could be violated with impunity, is definitely changing something. As for my qualifications, five years of Hebrew school, reading the entire Bible, and understanding the culture of those who follow the Sabbath more strictly than I ever did.
If Christians treated the Sabbath like observant Jews do, you’d know it.
If you claim that any of the laws he threw out are not moral, it is going to be tough. I’d think that for a believer God’s laws define morality. I need logic, and what some guy says some other guy says God says don’t mean squat.
I can hear the church. “Zombies, what zombies? Pay no attention to the zombies behind the curtain.”
It’s your Bible, don’t ask us to justify it.
But I have a hypothesis. They all went to Pittsburgh and hung out for nearly 2,000 years until Romero came.
Of course violating a clear commandment would be immoral, but that doesn’t mean the command is concerning an issue of morality.
As an example, you may tell your child that he needs to go to bed at 9:00. There is nothing inherently immoral about going to bed at 9:30 or 10:00, but because you are his authority, and you told him to go to bed at 9:00, if he were to go to bed at 9:30 or 10:00, then he would be disobedient, which is immoral.
It’s not eating the shellfish that is immoral, it’s the act of disobedience.
Christians can eat shellfish because it follows a consistent morality paradigm that is universal and unchanging.
You don’t even believe in a deity, and yet you’re telling me which Bible is real and which isn’t?
I can make secular ethical arguments about things too. Would you like a cookie?
You’re blaming the Catholic Church for people dying of AIDS? Ok.
Why do you get to be the moral authority? Why does following Catholic law have to result in children going hungry?
Okay, we had a misunderstanding because I don’t view those type of contradictions in Scripture to be the same thing as a contradiction in the faith or in the Church.
Sure, I recognize that the Gospel accounts differ and could be said to contradict in minor details. I just don’t see how that is relevant to the issue at hand. Christianity is so much bigger than a book (or a collection of books).
Do you assert that all of the claims of Christianity are undermined because one Gospel account says there was one angel, and one Gospel account says there were two angels?
We may evolve in our understanding of morality, so in that sense it seems subjective. But morality has never changed, it’s been there all along. Our perspective and understanding has changed. We are just trying to get closer to the target.
This is true, but people like you and I back our opinions with evidence. Our opinions are fairly well-informed I would say.
Were those the only contradictions you found? Come back when you want to discuss all the contradictions, not just the cherry-picked “number of angels” minimal example.
That’s the key there, “violated with impunity”. This is an assumption that you have read into the text. Do you think Jesus believed that he was “violating the Sabbath law with impunity”? Do you think that the Jewish sabbath laws were an issue of morality, or were they a law imposed on the Jews both for their good and also to mark them out among the peoples of the world? Is it written into the laws of nature that working on the Sabbath is immoral?
Ok, so why should Christians treat the Sabbath like observant Jews do? Is it possible that some Jews have misunderstood the purpose and nature of the Sabbath laws? Where did the Sabbath laws come from, God, or the Jews?
So it’s plural now? What other laws did Jesus “throw out”?
What about the ascension, for which the Catholics have a holiday? One book ends with Jesus saying stuff, making no mention of the ascension. Two books speak of it happening fairly promptly after his chat with the guys. And the fourth book says that he lived happily ever after (on Earth) and did lots more stuff (too much stuff to write about). So you have 2 no, 2 yes: are you just believing what makes you happy?