Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac

philologos wrote: »

Eh I condemn child labour in China precisely because it's the mere abuse and exploitation of individuals. That's why William Wilberforce challenged colonial slavery in the Houses of Parliament.

Paul in Ephesians 6:5-9 explicitly condemns that type of treatment.

So unequivocally I oppose that. People have been dishonestly misconstruing my posts so far which us greatly greatly frustrating.

I did not mean to imply you were in support of slavery. My point is that all forms of human rights violations should be opposed and to highlight the hypocricy of certain atheists on the subject.

Virgil°

philologos wrote: »

Eh I condemn child labour in China precisely because it's the mere abuse and exploitation of individuals.

SLAVERY is abuse and exploitation of individuals.

G.K.

philologos wrote: »

If Jesus treated us with unmerited favour and abounding mercy, what would be the consequence if we treated others like this in our world.

You can treat others accordingly well without holding them as slaves. Why does one need to be the master of another's freedom, work, movements etc to do this?

Doc Farrell

philologos wrote: »

Eh I condemn child labour in China precisely because it's the mere abuse and exploitation of individuals. That's why William Wilberforce challenged colonial slavery in the Houses of Parliament.

Paul in Ephesians 6:5-9 explicitly condemns that type of treatment.

So unequivocally I oppose that. People have been dishonestly misconstruing my posts so far which us greatly greatly frustrating.

It would appear as if posters are literally not reading your posts. They are so filled with self righteous indignation that they literally cannot read your sentences.
I'm sure the next post will be to tell us all that slavery is wrong and that you sir are worse than hitler!

philologos

Doc Farrell wrote: »

It would appear as if posters are literally not reading your posts. They are so filled with self righteous indignation that they literally cannot read your sentences.
I'm sure the next post will be to tell us all that slavery is wrong and that you sir are worse than hitler!

This isn't about me. The whole of Ephesians centres on who we are in Christ, who the Christian church is in Christ, and how following Jesus transforms how we see the world including how Christians see marriage (5:22-33), children and parents (6:1-4) and how Christianity views slavery (6:1-5) all in light of Jesus.

Applying a colonial view of slavery to this context is an anachronism.

I thought my comment on these verses would be relatively uncontroversial. What shocked me was how little people read either the passage or my post.

Admittedly I got overly frustrated and made some comments I shouldn't have made about other posters. That I regret.

Zombrex

Virgil° wrote: »

SLAVERY is abuse and exploitation of individuals.

This point is being ignored, I suspect because to some it is so obvious that it hardly needs to be actually mention (we all know it is true, right!?!) and to others it is a concept so alien that explaining it to them is like explaining colour to a blind person. (no we don't all know it is true!)

Ironically pointing this out some how means being self righteous :rolleyes:

It is like the Taliban arguing that when you kidnap your wife off the planes of Afghanistan you must make sure to treat your new wife well, to love her, to make sure she is well looked after, that you treat her as a wife should be treated.

Of course the point that maybe you shouldn't kidnap your bride in the first place, that such a basis for marriage is inherently immoral in of itself not simply if you then mistreat her, is lost on these people.

It isn't that these people think "Kidnapping your wife is wrong, but I do it anyway". It is that the concept is not considered immoral. There is a good form of kidnapping your bride, and a bad form of kidnapping your bride, and you should do the good form. The immoral bit is kidnapping your wife and then abusing her.

The same issue is arising here, some genuinely don't seem to know that slavery is bad in of itself, not simply when you mistreat your slaves on top of the initial slavery. That point has been pointed out many times and it is met with the same blank confusion as I imagine the Time magazine journalist met when first trying to assess if these Taliban tribes men actually understand the inherent immorality of kidnapping a girl to be your wife.

To some the "problem" with slavery is not the slavery bit, it is abusing your slaves when you have them. Slavery is fine if done properly, as God wishes it to be done. This is why "colonial slavery" is mentioned on this forum all the time, that is code word for bad slavery. You need the "colonial" bit you see because you can't just say "slavery" because slavery by itself is not in of itself bad.

The slaves in "colonial slavery" were abused on top of the slavery. And to some that was the bad bit of the whole affair. Drop the colonial bit of "colonial slavery" and you are fine.

Doc Farrell

A quick and easy lesson in hermeneutics.

http://theresurgence.com/2011/12/13/a-quick-and-easy-lesson-in-hermeneutics

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

<...>

Of course the point that maybe you shouldn't kidnap your bride in the first place, that such a basis for marriage is inherently immoral in of itself not simply if you then mistreat her, is lost on these people.<...>
The same issue is arising here, some genuinely don't seem to know that slavery is bad in of itself, not simply when you mistreat your slaves on top of the initial slavery. <...>

How is anything inherently immoral? How is something bad in and of itself? Accordingly to what standard?

If there's some higher moral law to which St Paul, Jesus and the New York State Boxing Commission are all subject, what is its source?

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

How is anything inherently immoral? How is something bad in and of itself? Accordingly to what standard?

There is a difference between inherently immoral with objectively immoral. Two completely different concepts, objective immorality is not relevant to my point.

Inherently immoral simply means immoral based on its own properties rather than external deciding factors. For example rape is to my mind inherently immoral because it is the forced sexual assault of another, irrespective of the context it happens in, it doesn't the context with which the rape happens.

Others unfortunately would disagree, and might argue say that if your girlfriend cheated on you then if you rape her it is not immoral. That would be the same action (forced sexual assault of another) but considered moral because it was an act of punishment. Or arguing that you cannot rape your wife because she has duty to you that is your right to take if she doesn't perform. They would argue that rape is not therefore inherently immoral.

Some are arguing that slavery is not inherently immoral, it is only immoral if you go on to abuse or mistreat your slaves. That ignores that slavery itself is a form of abuse or mistreatment.

Zombrex

Doc Farrell wrote: »

A quick and easy lesson in hermeneutics.

http://theresurgence.com/2011/12/13/a-quick-and-easy-lesson-in-hermeneutics

Awesome. Now ask your fellow Christians if they actual condemn all forms of slavery as immoral.

Fanny Cradock

Paul lived in a time when slavery was not merely acceptable, it formed the basis of society. The great Empires where built on the backs of slaves. Today we might look in horror at the practice but the fact is that there were forms of slavery that provided people with the means to live. In societies that had no concept of social welfare and scant regard for individual rights certain forms of slavery may have the best option for the disadvantaged and debt-ridden to remain alive.

Ancient people didn't have a consensus view that slavery was the great evil that we think it is today, which is certainly a pity for anyone who found themselves with a cruel master. However, we who are convinced that slavery is a monstrous evil live in a world with an estimated 20+ million people held in some slavery or debt-based servitude and countless others who are powerless against self-interested moneylenders like the World Bank. I'll be generous here when I presume that all the atheists on this thread who are so horrified that Paul didn't condemn slavery are working with laudable passion to end it today.

If people want to read Paul's letters through 21st Century eyes then they missing his purpose in writing them. Paul wasn't making a social commentary on the state of the Empire that happens to chime exactly with the morals of 21st century people. His letters, which were addressed to members of a very small and persecuted community spread thin throughout the land, where intended as ways of instructing, reproving and encouraging his fellow Christians in their faith. This said, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Abolition and the Civil Rights movements grew out of Godly convictions.

Finally, given the centuries that have passed between the ancient pagan and Jewish cultures that permitted slavery and our 21st century western cultures, what exactly do you appeal to when you say that this practice was wrong?

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

There is a difference between inherently immoral with objectively immoral. Two completely different concepts, objective immorality is not relevant to my point.

Inherently immoral simply means immoral based on its own properties rather than external deciding factors. For example rape is to my mind inherently immoral because it is the forced sexual assault of another, irrespective of the context it happens in, it doesn't the context with which the rape happens.

Others unfortunately would disagree, and might argue say that if your girlfriend cheated on you then if you rape her it is not immoral. That would be the same action (forced sexual assault of another) but considered moral because it was an act of punishment. Or arguing that you cannot rape your wife because she has duty to you that is your right to take if she doesn't perform. They would argue that rape is not therefore inherently immoral.

Some are arguing that slavery is not inherently immoral, it is only immoral if you go on to abuse or mistreat your slaves. That ignores that slavery itself is a form of abuse or mistreatment.

You have to tell us how and why something can be inherently moral or immoral, not just give examples of such things that we all think are immoral to begin with. That's like going to a vanilla ice-cream lovers convention and in the keynote address insisting that vanilla ice-cream has the inherent properties of being the best ice-cream flavour. Sure people will agree with you but we have gotten no closer to the nature of these elusive properties.

Other than the self referential nature of the claim, what property does inherent immorality have that makes it immoral?

pauldla

I find the phrase 'a Christian model for slavery' to be very provocative, and I think any decent person, regardless of creed, is morally bound to ask for clarification on the point.

(proviso: If you haven't asked for clarification, it does not mean you are not a decent or moral person. It means you haven't asked for clarification)

I am not a Christian, but I was raised a Catholic, and I remember some of the teachings of Jesus: do unto others, sell all your possessions and come follow me, a camel through the eye of a needle, etc. It is very hard to reconcile these teachings with the idea of 'a Christian model for slavery'.

One thing which is worth noting (which I have alluded to before, and now wish I'd pursued further), is that the author of Ephesians refers to Christ, not Jesus. Whatever else he meant, he is not presenting us with a WWJD moment. It is also worth noting, as Benny does above, that the authorship of Ephesians is disputed, with a considerable number of authorities doubting that it was written by Paul at all. I'd go so far as to say that the author of Ephesians may not even have been as familiar with the stories about Jesus as modern Christians are today.

It does not serve to play fast and loose with names and terms; and context, as always, is king.

I do not believe that any contributor to this thread supports, endorses or condones slavery. What I found depressing earlier was one poster seemingly painting himself into a corner, in light of his (supposed, on my part) strict belief in the NT as the Word of God, and his not having the wherewithal to get himself out of it again; it seemed to me that his belief had taken him to a very strange place.

My point of entry to this little spat was incredulity that anybody could compare their current working conditions with 1st Century Roman slavery. I still maintain that position: imo, any such comparison is extremely naive, if not completely absurd.

Alas, now I must go to earn a living, but I hope to address other points raised later today. Having said that: I might not. I might be busy. I might not be bothered. Stay tuned.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Awesome. Now ask your fellow Christians if they actual condemn all forms of slavery as immoral.

I am not religious but obviously kidnapping someone and forcing them to provide labor is always immoral. I am not sure what God of the Christian bible said specifically on this, maybe someone can elaborate.

However, you don't have to go back 2000 years and don't even have to look beyond Ireland to find an example where slavery is not so obvious from a moral standpoint. Have a look at the census data available online for early 20th century Ireland and randomly look at areas in rural Ireland and you will find countless examples of farm laborers living in households. These were people with no means to support themselves due to the economic conditions of the time (there was no dole) other than being provided support by the heads of households where they lived. They were completley dependent on their "masters" for basic economic needs like eating, clothing and shelter in return for their labor.

This is called voluntary slavery which I believe was quite common in the era this thread is concerned with. Were the heads of households who kept farm laborers in Ireland of the 20th century immoral? I'm not so sure, the alternative is these people would have starved (as many did in Ireland not long before). If you're looking for example of immorality, consider the Irish famine, or is that off limits as we might offend our dear neighbors?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Were the heads of households who kept farm laborers in Ireland of the 20th century immoral?

No, the ones that treated the labours as slaves were immoral.

Isn't that obvious? Are you suggesting that theses employers had to treat the labours as slaves for some sort of greater good?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

No, the ones that treated the labours as slaves were immoral.

Isn't that obvious? Are you suggesting that theses employers had to treat the labours as slaves for some sort of greater good?

How do you define a slave? Is it only someone who is taken against their will and held under force to fulfill labor duties? If so, I agree this is immoral.

I am talking about poeple who had no ability to economically sustain themselves in early 20th century Ireland and voluntarily worked for farmers in exchange for accomodation, food, clothing, etc. How was what the head of household (the farmer) doing immoral? He was exchanging something of value (food, clothing, shelter) for labor. This was clearly slave labor in that no monetary compensation was offered but the alternative for many people was starvation. You can argue that the farmer should have paid the laborer, but in many cases the farmer could not afford to as they would have been scraping by themselves.

Its not such a black and white moral issue.

Peregrinus

The defining characteristic of slavery is not that no wage is paid. It's not difficult to find historic examples of slaves who were, in fact, paid a wage, even in the worst era of colonial slavery. Conversely somebody who is paid no cash wage but who is paid entirely in kind (accommodation, food, clothing, produce) is not necessarily a slave. (If he were, everyone in a barter economy would be a slave.)

The defining characteristics of slavery are (a) a slave has no choice about whether to work for his master (b) a slave has no right to offer his labour to a different master, and (sometimes but not always) (c) a master can sell or give away his right to the services of a slave to a different master, without the agreement of the slave.

We think of slavery as a matter of ownership - a slave can be bought and sold - and this was in fact the case both in European colonial slavery and in ancient Rome. But there are plenty of examples of slaves who cannot be bought or sold - serfdom as practiced in medieval Europe, for example, but I think also slavery as practiced by the Jews in biblical times. In these cases, slavery was more a matter of status than of ownership. Society was divided into, on the one hand, a relatively small number of (invariably male) citizens, and a number of other dependent classes of lesser social status - in no particular order women, children, slaves, outsiders/foreigners, people with unclean occupations, lepers . . . Slaves had a recognised place in society - a subordinate and disadvantaged place, but they weren't simply things owned, bought and sold by slaveholders.

We think of slavery as uniquely horrible, but that's partly because of how slavery played out between biblical time and our own - chattel slavery, racial slavery, the transatlantic slave trade, and so on. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that slavery became much, much worse (for the slaves, and for society as a whole) after Paul's time before it became better.

That doesn't make the moral issue go away, of course. But the question of how Paul should have responded to slavery isn't fundamentally different to the question of how Paul should have responded to the treatment of women in his society, or of children, or of foreigners. In all of those cases, we can criticise what Paul said (or failed to say) from our perspective. We can do so with particular smugness in the case of slavery, because we have abolished the institution entirely, whereas we still have work to do in eliminating the disadvantages imposed on women, children, foreigners, the ill, the insane and so forth.

Basically, Paul wasn’t interested in radical social reform. He was part of a community which expected the entire social order to be shortly swept away; what was the point of tinkering with it, or of fighting battles over issues that were about to become irrelevant? We, of course, know that Paul’s expectation was misplaced, but to infer from the fact that Paul didn’t oppose slavery that he was therefore supportive of it is, I think, a little unfair.

Aquarius34

What is the argument if both religious believers and atheists are wrong? This thread has gone on for like nearly 300 pages, and the argument on this thread is no different to the very first page. So it leads me to ask, maybe both sides just don't have it right?

philologos

Peregrinus: where I disagree with you is that Paul in Colossians and less so in Ephesians encouraged masters to treat and remunerate slaves fairly. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:21 also encourage those who are enslaved to seek freedom where possible.

I don't think there's a single thing wrong with what Paul or Peter in 1 Peter 2 discuss.

Intact in so far as most employees don't work as if they are serving Jesus and in so far as most employers don't treat their employees as Jesus did and still threaten on occasion the world still has much to learn from Ephesians.

I think the evidence of either Paul or Jesus believing that the end of the world would happen in their generation is weak. All Christians believe this earth will pass away at some point, in order judgement and for the New Creation.

If Zombrex hasn't put me on his ignore list yet he might want to discuss this point as he raised it earlier.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

How do you define a slave? Is it only someone who is taken against their will and held under force to fulfill labor duties? If so, I agree this is immoral.

A slave is someone who is held in bondage, required to work irrespective of their will and who has had their rights significantly diminished due to this captivity.

nagirrac wrote: »

He was exchanging something of value (food, clothing, shelter) for labor. This was clearly slave labor in that no monetary compensation was offered but the alternative for many people was starvation.

Why do you think this is slave labour?

The only difference between this and normal work was that instead of money they were paid with accommodation and food. This still happens today, a friend of mine worked in a hotel in Peru for a month where she was only paid in accommodation and food. That is still being paid and her rights were not effected at all, neither are they in bondage.

More importantly this rose tinted view of slavery being applied retroactively to what Paul is discussing is ridiculous. This would have been nothing like the slavery Paul would have known.

nagirrac wrote: »

Its not such a black and white moral issue.

It pretty much is in that what you are describing is not slavery.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

That doesn't make the moral issue go away, of course. But the question of how Paul should have responded to slavery isn't fundamentally different to the question of how Paul should have responded to the treatment of women in his society, or of children, or of foreigners. In all of those cases, we can criticise what Paul said (or failed to say) from our perspective. We can do so with particular smugness in the case of slavery, because we have abolished the institution entirely, whereas we still have work to do in eliminating the disadvantages imposed on women, children, foreigners, the ill, the insane and so forth.

You are missing the original point. If Paul is just speaking as a man, is just commenting on what he thinks is right or wrong, then yes singling out Paul and expecting him to have some incredibly progressive notion about slavery is ridiculous. It would make no more sense to decry Paul for this than it would to say that Plato, or Thomas Jefferson was an immoral monster because he supported slavery.

But in Christianity he is not just a man, he is supposed to be a messenger for God.

If Paul is just a man why take what he says about homosexuality as gospel now? If Paul is just trying to make the best of a bad situation why take what he says about marriage as gospel now? If Paul is just a man, a man constrained by to comment only the context of all the backwards practices of the time, why assume that any of what he says applies to humans now?

Paul clearly states that it is the will of God for slaves to submit to their masters out of respect and fear and Godly duty. He is not commenting just as a man, he is commenting on what God wills.

It is hypocritical to hold up Paul's instructions on something like homosexuality and say this applies today as much as it did back in Paul's time because it is the will of a never changing God, while fudging that completely when it comes to things we now "smugly" consider immoral, such as slavery.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Basically, Paul wasn’t interested in radical social reform.

Paul was interested in communicating what he believed was the will of his god, a belief that is shared by the vast majority of Christians today, a will that Christians today continue to use as the moral instruction to live by.

This original discussion was started because I pointed out to Jimi and Phil that all Christians re-interpret Paul and his message in a modern context, you have to in order to be a Christian, and as such it is nonsensical to claim that some Christian are being "dishonest" saying that Paul's instructions for homosexuality don't apply to modern issues of gay marriage, while at the same time saying that Paul's instructions for slavery don't apply.

Things got a bit side tracked because I genuinely didn't expect any of the Christians here to start arguing that in fact slavery is good. But that wasn't the original point. The vast majority of Christians don't consider slavery good, nor do they consider it in line with Christianity, but this requires a reading into Paul's word that goes beyond simply what he would have meant.

And if you can do this for Paul's words on slavery, why can you not do it for Paul's words on homosexual acts? Why is that "dishonest", as some Christians are asserting.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Peregrinus: where I disagree with you is that Paul in Colossians and less so in Ephesians encouraged masters to treat and remunerate slaves fairly. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:21 also encourage those who are enslaved to seek freedom where possible.

I don't think there's a single thing wrong with what Paul or Peter in 1 Peter 2 discuss.

What’s wrong is what they don’t say, surely? What strikes the modern reader, when he sees Paul encouraging masters to treat and remunerate slaves fairly is that Paul isn’t telling them they need to manumit their slaves - even though, quite obviously, that’s a pretty irreducible minimum for anything that could be described as “fair” treatment of a slave.

I can draw only two possible conclusions from this.

(a) Paul didn’t think that slavery was intrinsically and gravely wrong.

(b) He did, but nevertheless it wasn’t his objective, in writing his letters, to attack that particular evil. And the most likely (or maybe the most charitable) explanation for this is that he saw it as a transient evil – one which was going to pass away in any event, and therefore which he didn’t need to make a priority in his moral teaching.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

What’s wrong is what they don’t say, surely? What strikes the modern reader, when he sees Paul encouraging masters to treat and remunerate slaves fairly is that Paul isn’t telling them they need to manumit their slaves - even though, quite obviously, that’s a pretty irreducible minimum for anything that could be described as “fair” treatment of a slave.

I can draw only two possible conclusions from this.

(a) Paul didn’t think that slavery was intrinsically and gravely wrong.

(b) He did, but nevertheless it wasn’t his objective, in writing his letters, to attack that particular evil. And the most likely (or maybe the most charitable) explanation for this is that he saw it as a transient evil – one which was going to pass away in any event, and therefore which he didn’t need to make a priority in his moral teaching.

I don't believe its intrinsically immoral or even immoral in the context of both Hebrew and Roman society it was possible to have an entirely amicable slave / master relationship. For example one who was a slave to make restitution for debt.

Paul is rather clear that he opposes slavery which is abusive, and he implores masters to treat their slaves as Jesus treated them. That's the radical part that everyone, including you have ignored so far.

Paul stood up against the exploitation and abuse of slaves in the Roman Empire and encouraged reform through Christianity.

tommy2bad

(c) Paul couldn't fully understand what God wanted. No more than anyone else he is limited by being human.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

(c) Paul couldn't fully understand what God wanted. No more than anyone else he is limited by being human.

Just about slavery or everything?

G.K.

philologos wrote: »

Paul is rather clear that he opposes slavery which is abusive, and he implores masters to treat their slaves as Jesus treated them. That's the radical part that everyone, including you gave ignored so far.

It hasn't been ignored, people just disagree with you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Zombrex wrote: »

<...>Some are arguing that slavery is not inherently immoral, it is only immoral if you go on to abuse or mistreat your slaves. That ignores that slavery itself is a form of abuse or mistreatment.<...>

I'm afraid this just isn't adding up for me, and I still don't see any basis for this inherent morality, other than your personal assertion that it be so. In other words, it's not that slavery is inherently wrong in any sense; it's simply that you expect most people, like yourself, to accept it as wrong in commonsense terms.

I'm not especially defending Paul's view. But I can appreciate there's a point in what he's saying. I think you are really just depending on the shock value of the word "slavery". Didn't the Ottoman Turks have a class of administrators who were notionally slaves, but who were personally wealthy and free in all but name? On the other hand, someone living in a house in negative equity is notionally free, but actually can't sell up and move on.

People in all societies experience power relationships. You could see Paul's view as suggesting that enforcing whatever legal rights you have in a situation is not enough; you have to behave decently to others, whatever their formal status.

Zombrex

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm afraid this just isn't adding up for me, and I still don't see any basis for this inherent morality, other than your personal assertion that it be so. In other words, it's not that slavery is inherently wrong in any sense; it's simply that you expect most people, like yourself, to accept it as wrong in commonsense terms.

Again you are discussing objective morality, this is a different discussion.

If I say I find ice cream is inherently nice to eat this means the ice cream is on its own nice to eat.

On the other hand I might say I only enjoy wine when out for dinner. This means having dinner sitting in my apartment alone at 5am is not a pleasurable experience. The pleasure is not inherent to the wine, it requires external factors.

Neither of these comments are anything to do with the objective niceness of wine or ice cream. So that is what I mean by inherently immoral.
An example of something that is not inherently immoral is killing someone. There are lots of circumstances where killing someone is in fact moral, for example if they are coming at you with a knife screaming "Death to all Atheists!". So you cannot say that killing someone is immoral based on the singular properties of the action. Slavery on the other hand is inherently immoral

Now if you are asking what is the basis for me saying something is or isn't moral in the first place then yes there is no basis for this other than my opinion and the opinion of others.

Using another non-moral related example, if someone said "Man I really didn't enjoy "Are We There Yet 3", I think it was because people were talking through the movie", I might say "Er, yes but it is also an inherently bad movie" I cannot objectively say it is a bad movie because there is no objective standard for movies. But equally it probably wasn't just that the people were talking that made the person not enjoy the movie. He didn't enjoy the movie because it is just a plan bad movie.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not especially defending Paul's view. But I can appreciate there's a point in what he's saying.

There is, it is that slavery is God's will so long as it is done in a certain fashion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think you are really just depending on the shock value of the word "slavery". Didn't the Ottoman Turks have a class of administrators who were notionally slaves, but who were personally wealthy and free in all but name?

I don't know, if they were why were they called slaves?

But that is also beside the point. If we redefine what slaves mean simply to make what Paul says sound better, when it clearly isn't what Paul was talking about, what is the point of that?

If I read that some Serbian war criminal says that he was happy genocide was carried out is Kosovo it would be rather nonsensical for his supporters to say that well "genocide" was used in other instance to simply mean the forced removal of people from their land, so "genocide" isn't as bad as it sounds. Even if that were true, it is as bad as it sounds when the Serbian war criminal says it.

Paul is talking about slavery. He is not talking about workers living with their employers. He is not talking about having a "slave driving" boss at the bank. He is not talking about hating Monday mornings.

Zombrex

G.K. wrote: »

It hasn't been ignored, people just disagree with you.

Its like saying look how progressive the Taliban are being is being when they order their members that they should love their kidnapped child brides and not abuse them.

If I was objecting to the kidnapping of girls to be brides and someone said "But Zombrex you are ignoring the most important part! The Taliban say treat your kidnapped child brides well and love them like all your other wives! You refuse to acknowledge how good this is!" I would have the same reaction. I'm not ignoring it, I'm rejecting the premiss.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Just about slavery or everything?

Most things, but then I don't believe in some God dictating what to say to some chosen few.
My take is as understanding grows so dose our comprehension of God's will. It's an incremental thing.