3 ms·
Thank you for your thoughtful response. At the risk of sounding churlish, however, I think you dodged my question : ) I know that I should not murder, and tha
by Jedd 11y ago
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
At the risk of sounding churlish, however, I think you dodged my question : )
I know that I should not murder, and that I should not buy / keep slaves. Yet I don't need to refer to a text that agrees with my position on the former, but is (at best) ambiguous on the latter. (The precise mechanism by which I've come to know both things are bad is not something I can conveniently answer, before you ask. Quoting K-Pax may be necessary.)
My question was if you have the necessary innate / internal / nascent / instinctive understanding to know slavery is bad (as one example) then what's the point of using a text that advocates slavery as the basis of a moral framework?
- protomyth 11y agoWell, I tried, as I said I'm not a scholar but a student. > I've come to know both things are bad is not something I can conveniently answer, before you ask Yet, you ask me the reason I use a text that is the basis of my church's beliefs that were taught to me to show those are bad. I don't think its instinctive to know its bad or else it would have not been such an institution in the first place. To be fair to the Bible, it doesn't advocate slavery, but it does have commands on how to treat slaves including freeing them. I guess there is a pragmatism in lessening the horror when its not ingrained to end it outright.