Philo,

BIBLES

The following is from the New International Version:

********************************************************************
Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21:21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

********************************************************************

The following is from the King James Version:

******************************************************************
Exodus: 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

******************************************************************

Above, perhaps, the property versus money, represents ownsership versus changed economic circumstance respectively.

Again, whether the servant was beaten to an inch of his/he life or died after a few days seems problematic, because the meanings are so very different. Could there be some cross-denominational spin or constructionism a foot?

Presumably, the authors of the at least twenty-six versions of the Bible can read the source texts.

Philo and Aslan,

Do you see the compilers of the Bible as infallible or as chroniclers?

Oliver,
I agree to some degree with your observations, as the historical text can be interpreted by the new cultural understanding of the translator. I personally have found this on several fronts.

1. The Book of Job on which I have written a commentary placing the conflict in different historical periods since Abraham. Job a grandson of Abraham on Esau's side refused to believe in a seperate terrestrial god of the earth, which post Babylonians identify as the Satan. However the Greek Septuagint endeavouring to uphold monotheism translates all the terms for God/gods as Theos, and it has been this misunderstanding that has led to the Catholic view of an actual Satan. I am an orthodox Christian monotheist, and do not believe in the pagan concept of demons or other gods controlling behaviour or physical events.

2. I do read text contemporary of the selected Biblical text to evaluate what I believe is the truth. Though Thomas was a disciple, his theology is not representative of Christ. Christ had to correct him only days before his crucifixion about his understanding of God (John 14). I have high regard for James, the son of Joseph from a previous wife, who was about 6 - 8 years old when Jesus was born. He was raised in the care of Mary, and later became an Elder at the Jerusalem Church, so he carries some weight in Christian thought.

The text of the Bible is however a credible sourse of information and reporting from the historical period. But with all human reports does have the character of the reporter emerging. This has to be taken into account in understanding both his message and in comparison with others able to put together a whole picture. But then again my own thinking can colour the facts - hence denominational conclusions on what is truth. Though most denominations capture an element of truth and take it to its logical extremes beyond the original intention of the writer. I try not to read commentaries, only original Biblical texts.

Oliver,

You said:"I do not hold that absolute morals exist in an ethereal sense. Just the same I do feel humanity is very capable of establishing its own moral values."

How? On what basis?

You said: "Moreover, societies will often hold different collective opinions as to what is moral."

This is actually a debatable point, but let's assume it is correct. What can you properly conclude from this? The only thing you can properly conclude is that different societies hold different opinions about morality. It says nothing about the nature of morality itself.

You refer to Kohlberg's, 6 stages/orientations, and then suggest that "the Bible is all over the place with regard to the stages."

But why should I accept Kohlberg? Isn't that just his opinion? On your relativist view, Kohlberg's opinions are relevant only to Kohlberg and those that think like him. It has nothing to do with me or anyone else.

Furthermore, Kohlberg's stages indicate a hierarchy ie. higher stages are superior to lower stages. What criteria does he/you use to determine that stage 5 is superior to stage 4 etc. In fact, the very notion of superiority/inferiority in a relativistic view is meaningless.

You said: "Someone from the twenty-first century West...now looks back and sees God acting like a Hebrew chieftain. Surely, an Almighty God is above this?"

Again, you're morally comparing/judging particular views with no reference point. You can't do this on your view.

You're cheating Oliver. Every argument you make is self-contradictory. You assume an absolute moral standard (your own!) in order to argue that there is no absolute moral standard!

Your view is so obviously wrong - just on logical grounds! The proposition "everything is relative", is an absolute claim. If the proposition is right then the proposition is wrong.

Oliver, the very fact that you disagree with others on this forum demonstrates that you yourself don't even believe what you propose.

You said: "Aslan, I hope I have answered your question."

Not in the slightest. In fact, you can't answer it without denying your view. It's logically impossible.

Aslan, you should be a politician, managing to avoid the real question by substituting another. Here's your latest classic:

"You accuse me of making words mean whatever I like. Your accusation is baseless. I have never changed any meaning."

I didn't say you *changed* the meaning, I said that you deliberately selected the one that suited your particular argument on a specific topic, despite the fact that it was not the meaning ascribed to it by the original writer.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that you are arguing simply to outlast anyone who takes you to task on your inconsistencies. Your continuing attempts to distort and rearrange history is - if deliberate - quite deceitful. If it is not deliberate, and you genuinely believe that you are infallible in your views, I can only feel sorry for you. Your mind is so closed, it must be immensely frustrating for you to meet real people from time to time - 'why can't they all think like me', you mutter to yourself, 'it is all so obvious'.

Have a wonderful, if intellectually limited, day.

Philo,

Thank you for an interesting reply. I feel it good have developed your beliefs without ignoring histograghies, politics and alternative religions, including, the fallibility of the Catholic Church. I was unaware of the origin of Satan, presumably different to evil as in the "snake".

Aslan,

I do disgree you and Plato regarding "absolute" morality. There is a middle ground between Chaos and Absolutes, wherein, individuals and societies can establish moral standards. If ecologies are many different feet and moral systems are shoes, one shoe size does not fit all feet. I am under some time pressure now, and will reply in more detail latter. In the meantime, chew on this one;

How can we know the morality of God, represents "absolute" morality?

Also, to carring down another discourse: (a) Is the Bible infallible? , (b) Were the Christian Founding Fathers infallible?

Pericles,

Welcome back. I thought you might have been worn away. :-)

Oliver,
My name sake - Philo the Hellenistic Jew has written quite a bit on slavery, see “The Special Laws XXIV and XXV”. He especially denounces the abuse of slaves by master’s he calls, ‘innate misanthropy and barbarity as a sign of irresponsible tyrannical power” that forbids anyone to speak or act on their own initiative or will.

Freedom of thought and ability to act on will is the nature of freedom. Philo in his “Contemplation of Life” IX 70 identifies that all men are born equal and created free, but injustice and covetousness for power has given some power over the economical poor or emotionally weak. This practise he does not see as the divine ordained principle. He makes a distinction between slaves and servants, servants he sees as young voluntary workers prompted by virtue and excellence to achieve connection with those they serve.

If we believe the character of God is pure and perfect then his moral nature is absolute. eg If we know an issue is factually true according to how we perceived the event and we deliberately intend to falsify the facts because it is to our advantage then that is a lie, no matter how trivial. The cover up in our demeanour will affect how we relate to the one we've deceived. The only true way is absolute moral purity and honesty. This applies in every area of human behaviour. Being absolutely open and honest will expose our weakness, but it will raise our credibility. The morality of God is absolute, otherwise we will ignore the offence we cause others. However the level of personal tolerance of others offences must be gracious forgiveness. State law comes into play when some action becomes socially offensive and intolerant.