Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos wrote: »

There is a difference for sure. Slavery as it was commonly practiced in the Roman Empire (as opposed to the Christian model that Paul presents for it in 6:5-9) is certainly much worse than the situation I'm in at present.

However, if the situation is better, how much more am I meant to work as I'm working for Christ?

Thankfully I don't, but I am aware of what responsibilities I have as a Christian in the workplace.

Like Zombrex you're applying assumptions to the passage that just aren't there. Paul is saying that masters shouldn't mistreat their slaves and should treat them as Jesus would.

You are continuing to ignore / miss the main point here. What Zombrex is saying, and what most people would agree with, is that slavery, in and of itself, however "well" the slaves are treated, is wrong.

Slavery restricts several rights that we consider to be very important, freedom of movement, freedom of association freedom to choose work, etc. So, even if we ignore abuse, and assume that the slaves were treated well, if they still had restrictions imposed on them, as I mention above, then it was still wrong.

Now, unless you are suggesting that the slaves did not have any of these restrictions imposed on them, in which case they were not slaves, then, irrespective of any other physical abuse they, they were mistreated.

So, please answer this question, which is the same as Zombrex's, though a little more detailed...

Do you agree that it is acceptable, both morally and socially, to "own" another human being and, irrespective of how you physically treat them, have total control over what they can do with respect to their freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom to work as they choose.

MrP

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

Nothing more needs to be said, you just need to actually read what's being said

This is what I read.

philologos wrote: »

I believe that slavery if it was practiced as Paul describes in verses 5-9 isn't problematic. Where it becomes problematic is where there is inherent abuse involved.

I read this as meaning that you, an educated citizen of the 21st Century, have no problem with slavery if master and slave both follow Ephesians 6:5-9.

Have I got it right?

philologos wrote: »

Paul or Peter aren't adding anything to Christ. What they are saying is we are Christians, this is what Jesus has done for us, how does this apply to the world around us.

They aren't instituting slavery, rather all they are saying is that it is a reality in the world around them that needs to be engaged with as a Christian.

Paul's statement precludes an abusive relationship between masters and slaves in verse 9.

'Be nice to your slaves' was not exactly a radical idea for the 1st Century. A Roman slaveowner regarded a slave as valuable property, and capable of great mischief if abused, especially for domestic or household slaves (not so for the poor creatures down the mines, however). All Paul is doing is adding 'because, Christ' (if you'll pardon the brevity). Now, I notice you didn't answer my hypothetical question about Jesus keeping slaves; and, as I noted, Paul is talking about Christ, not Jesus. But that's a conversation for another time, perhaps.

pauldla wrote: »

A Christian model for slavery (!) is still slavery. Does any more need to be said on that point?

Nothing more needs to be said, you just need to actually read what's being said

pauldla wrote: »

You have responsibilities as a contracted employee.

I know, and I also have responsibilities as a Christian in respect to my work. It's not entirely secular is what I'm saying

pauldla wrote: »

Yes Phil, I get that. Paul is telling slaveowners to be nice to their slaves, and is telling slaves to work well for their masters. This is hardly radical stuff, is it? Wasn't Seneca writing similiar earlier in the century? And didn't Cato eat with his slaves? Indeed, a good slave was considered valuable property, and hard to replace. The only new element that Paul is adding to this is the concept of Christ (not, tellingly, Jesus, but Christ).

BTW, would Jesus have kept slaves?

Paul or Peter aren't adding anything to Christ. What they are saying is we are Christians, this is what Jesus has done for us, how does this apply to the world around us.

They aren't instituting slavery, rather all they are saying is that it is a reality in the world around them that needs to be engaged with as a Christian.

Paul's statement precludes an abusive relationship between masters and slaves in verse 9.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

There is a difference for sure. Slavery as it was commonly practiced in the Roman Empire (as opposed to the Christian model that Paul presents for it in 6:5-9) is certainly much worse than the situation I'm in at present.

However, if the situation is better, how much more am I meant to work as I'm working for Christ?

A Christian model for slavery (!) is still slavery. Does any more need to be said on that point?

philologos wrote: »

Thankfully I don't, but I am aware of what responsibilities I have as a Christian in the workplace.

You have responsibilities as a contracted employee.

philologos wrote: »

Like Zombrex you're applying assumptions to the passage that just aren't there. Paul is saying that masters shouldn't mistreat their slaves and should treat them as Jesus would.

Yes Phil, I get that. Paul is telling slaveowners to be nice to their slaves, and is telling slaves to work well for their masters. This is hardly radical stuff, is it? Wasn't Seneca writing similiar earlier in the century? And didn't Cato eat with his slaves? Indeed, a good slave was considered valuable property, and hard to replace. The only new element that Paul is adding to this is the concept of Christ (not, tellingly, Jesus, but Christ).

BTW, would Jesus have kept slaves?

pauldla wrote: »

:eek:

Did I just read that? A comparison between a contemporary workplace and 1st Century slavery in the Roman Empire?

There is a difference for sure. Slavery as it was commonly practiced in the Roman Empire (as opposed to the Christian model that Paul presents for it in 6:5-9) is certainly much worse than the situation I'm in at present.

However, if the situation is better, how much more am I meant to work as I'm working for Christ?

pauldla wrote: »

You must have an awful job, philo.

Thankfully I don't, but I am aware of what responsibilities I have as a Christian in the workplace.

pauldla wrote: »

To be a slave is to be abused and dehumanised; a gilded cage is still a cage.

Like Zombrex you're applying assumptions to the passage that just aren't there. Paul is saying that masters shouldn't mistreat their slaves and should treat them as Jesus would.

pauldla

:eek:

Did I just read that? A comparison between a contemporary workplace and 1st Century slavery in the Roman Empire?

You must have an awful job, philo.

To be a slave is to be abused and dehumanised; a gilded cage is still a cage.

Sorry for interrupting: I'll try to keep out of this, as it's a fascinating exchange of views.

Zombrex wrote: »

I did. You seem to be suggesting Paul saying to masters treat your slaves well some how means something significant to the point at hand. It doesn't, and I suspect you actually know it doesn't.

It's not just treat your slaves well, but treat your slaves as God has treated you in Christ.

It's hugely significant, and is hugely significant in the other examples of husbands and wives (5:22-33) and children and parents (6:1-4). That's the point why Paul is writing this.

In 5:21 before Paul gives 3 examples we see that he mentions that one should submit to one another out of reverence of Christ.

Zombrex wrote: »

The point at hand is the sanction of slavery, and the encouragement of slaves to happy submit to their own slavery by Paul. This comes from the part where Paul instructs slaves to be good little slaves and happy obey their masters because that is the order of things as God intended.

I agree. That is what he's saying. He's also saying that the order of things as God intended is for masters to use their authority over their slaves as Christ used it in respect to us.

Zombrex wrote: »

The bit about masters treating their slaves well is as morally irrelevant as saying when you are raping someone try and use polite words. Slavery itself is a crime, slavery itself is a form of abuse. This concept is totally alien to Paul, but it isn't alien to you. So stop pretending otherwise simply to stall the conversation.

No, there's no comparison whatsoever. If masters are to treat their slaves as Paul mentioned, mistreatment and abuse has no place in it. In the same way in what Paul has said in the previous section about wives and husbands when He says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her (5:25), Paul in this case is saying that masters should do the same, essentially glorify Jesus Christ as master over these people.

You are the one who is refusing to read the passage. I'm looking to the details. You're stalling the conversation by refusing to actually acknowledge what the text is saying.

Zombrex wrote: »

I "intentionally ignored" verse 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 as well. I also didn't quote 1 to 4 either. Because they aren't about sanctioning slavery.

6:9 is hugely relevant to 6:5-8. Refusing to quote the whole section of Scripture is dishonest because it is intentionally meant to skew the reader to one conclusion rather than looking to the fullness of what Paul is saying in Ephesians.

Zombrex wrote: »

Stop stalling.

You're the one who has quoted a passage and on proper analysis of the ins and outs of what it is saying you're getting upset and are throwing the toys out of the pram.

Zombrex wrote: »

You think they deserve to be slaves? Why exactly?

I think they deserve to be treated well by their masters. Moreover, Scripture does say that Christians are to submit to the unkind as well as the kind (1 Peter 2:18). Titus also says the same in chapter 2:9-10, the motivation is slightly different:

Titus 2:9-10 wrote:

Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour.

In this case, Paul is saying that by submission to ones master one is glorifying Jesus, and making the doctrine of Christianity attractive so that people might ask, what is different in that guys life that has made him do this so well?

Paul doesn't say why people do or don't deserve to be slaves. However, even if they don't, it's a reality to be engaged with as a Christian. Paul doesn't glorify slavery in this section, what he does say is that this is how this present reality should be dealt with as a Christian.

Slaves are to submit, masters are to be kind as Jesus was immeasurably kind to them.

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes it is fascinating. It shows how totally ordinary slavery was to Paul, how the idea that slavery itself is immoral was unknown to him. He is not in anyway distressed or outraged by it. It is just the way things are. Which is odd if he is imparting the morality of God, who apparently is anti-slavery. :rolleyes:

Paul is engaging with a reality in the Roman Empire much as Peter is. Both are saying that to engage with slavery as a Christian means to glorify Jesus in it, both as masters and as slaves.

Zombrex wrote: »

The piece is saying both be a good slave and a good slave master, without any recognition of the contradiction inherent in such a statement., that it is impossible to be both "good" while practising slavery. It is a complete explicate and implicate (as Jimi would say) acceptance of slavery.

There isn't a contradiction involved. I think Paul realises in full what he's doing. He's transforming how Christians understand the subject, and he's saying that our trust in Jesus should transform it for the better.

Zombrex wrote: »

So again, do you believe, as Paul clearly does, that slavery is normal, acceptable, moral and sanctioned by God?

I believe that slavery if it was practiced as Paul describes in verses 5-9 isn't problematic. Where it becomes problematic is where there is inherent abuse involved.

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you a slave? Otherwise how you "serve" your "boss" is utterly irrelevant.

My boss is in charge of our work, I work to serve my boss. The relationship described in verse 8 in particular has implications for how I should work. If I ever got promoted and had responsibility over others verse 9 would also be applicable to how I treated them. Namely, as Christ would.

It's not hugely irrelevant. The only major difference is that I use boss instead of master.

Zombrex wrote: »

And I've told you, it is normalising slavery. You seem to be persistently ignoring that point, instead talking about how good it is that the masters are told to threat their slaves well while ignoring that they shouldn't have slaves in the first place. And then you talk about your boss at work. Stop stalling, you know what the issue here is you just don't want to face it.

I'm not stalling, you're just throwing the toys out of the pram because I'm actually reading the text.

I think the role of both in this situation is inherently good.

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes because Paul does not consider slavery itself an abuse.

That is the whole point, slavery is normal and right to Paul. He is saying in the context of normal slavery don't abuse your slaves. The idea that slavery itself is a form of abuse hasn't even occurred to him.

You know this, stop stalling.

As Paul describes it I don't consider it an abuse either for the record.

Paul is describing how slavery should look as a Christian in verses 8 and 9. He's describing how marriage should look as a Christian in 5:22 - 33, and how the relationship between children and their parents should look as a Christian in 6:1-4.

I believe what Paul is describing in 6:5-9 is inherently good because it radically challenges the notion of slavery, particularly the abuse and dehumanisation that is commonly associated with it. You're the one who is ignoring this. I'm engaging with the passage.

Zombrex wrote: »

By owning slaves! By partaking in the act of slavery!

Do you agree with that? Do you believe slaves should happy submit to their masters? Do you agree with the concept of slavery itself?

You still refuse to listen to what the passage actually says in order to apply misplaced extra-Biblical assumption to it.

Paul is saying that masters should serve their slaves as Jesus Christ served us.

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't ask you that. Stop stalling. Do you believe slavery is acceptable and moral?

As Paul describes it yes. As colonial powers described it no.

You're using the latter to inform the former which is an anachronism as I've been telling you.

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes I know, because according to Paul Christianity has no problem with slavery, slavery is normal and moral according to Paul and in fact slaves should wilfully submit and partake in their own bondage.

According to Paul, Christianity has a different perspective on slavery to the Roman world. That's what you're missing willfully.

Zombrex wrote: »

You are also the one trying really really really hard to avoid answer the question put to you.

I've answered it already. You've thrown the toys out of the pram because I've given you an answer that actually considers what Paul actually says in verses 6:5-9. The only objection you have is because of an anachronism you've applied to it.

If you refuse to listen, what more can I do.

Zombrex wrote: »

Again this is why I knew such a discussion would be rather pointless. You are just stalling, you are refusing to comment on the actual morality of slavery itself. Because we know you don't think slavery is moral. But you have to marry that with what you believe is the gospel of God.

I think as Paul describes it, it is entirely moral. In fact if most employers followed verse 9 the workplace would be a better place, never mind slavery.

Zombrex wrote: »

This is no different to Christians who know loving homosexual unions are not immoral, and try to marry that with the gospel of God.

You're not listening to what I've said. There's nothing immoral about Ephesians 6:5-9.

Zombrex wrote: »

You are all doing the same thing because none of you can actually follow the Bible as it is written. This rather pointless exercise has simply highlighted what I already said on the other thread.

You've ignored what I've said. I believe there's nothing wrong with Ephesians 6:1-9, and indeed I submit to it at work. I try serve Jesus in my work, so that He might be glorified. Indeed, this is one of the passages along with Colossians 3:23-24 that we aim to follow. I've read this passage at our workplace Christian Fellowship also in respect to working as to the Lord and not to men.

Why do you insist on lying about me? Why do you insist on dishonesty in reading this?

philologos wrote: »

No, I expect you to read what you've quoted honestly without ignoring it.

I did. You seem to be suggesting Paul saying to masters treat your slaves well some how means something significant to the point at hand. It doesn't, and I suspect you actually know it doesn't.

The point at hand is the sanction of slavery, and the encouragement of slaves to happy submit to their own slavery by Paul. This comes from the part where Paul instructs slaves to be good little slaves and happy obey their masters because that is the order of things as God intended.

The bit about masters treating their slaves well is as morally irrelevant as saying when you are raping someone try and use polite words. Slavery itself is a crime, slavery itself is a form of abuse. This concept is totally alien to Paul, but it isn't alien to you. So stop pretending otherwise simply to stall the conversation.

philologos wrote: »

I'm not stalling anything, I'm reading the passage. You intentionally ignored verse 9 for some reason.

I "intentionally ignored" verse 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 as well. I also didn't quote 1 to 4 either. Because they aren't about sanctioning slavery.

Stop stalling.

philologos wrote: »

I think it's wholly good. Paul is advocating that masters treat their slaves with the respect that they deserve.

You think they deserve to be slaves? Why exactly?

philologos wrote: »

What's fascinating is "do the same to them". Namely from verse 7 - 8, that they should render service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does they will receive back from the Lord.

Yes it is fascinating. It shows how totally ordinary slavery was to Paul, how the idea that slavery itself is immoral was unknown to him. He is not in anyway distressed or outraged by it. It is just the way things are. Which is odd if he is imparting the morality of God, who apparently is anti-slavery. :rolleyes:

The piece is saying both be a good slave and a good slave master, without any recognition of the contradiction inherent in such a statement., that it is impossible to be both "good" while practising slavery. It is a complete explicate and implicate (as Jimi would say) acceptance of slavery.

So again, do you believe, as Paul clearly does, that slavery is normal, acceptable, moral and sanctioned by God?

philologos wrote: »

You claim that I ignore it, when I look to this very passage when I seek to serve my boss at work.

I'm sorry, are you a slave? Otherwise how you "serve" your "boss" is utterly irrelevant.

philologos wrote: »

I'm asking you very simply what's wrong with the text in and of itself apart from applying extra-Biblical anachronisms that can't be found in the text to it?

And I've told you, it is normalising slavery. You seem to be persistently ignoring that point, instead talking about how good it is that the masters are told to threat their slaves well while ignoring that they shouldn't have slaves in the first place. And then you talk about your boss at work. Stop stalling, you know what the issue here is you just don't want to face it.

philologos wrote: »

What Paul is describing precludes abuse if you just read the passage.

Yes because Paul does not consider slavery itself an abuse.

That is the whole point, slavery is normal and right to Paul. He is saying in the context of normal slavery don't abuse your slaves. The idea that slavery itself is a form of abuse hasn't even occurred to him.

You know this, stop stalling.

philologos wrote: »

How could a master who was trying to serve God in how they treated their slaves encourage abuse?

By owning slaves! By partaking in the act of slavery!

philologos wrote: »

He's saying that if you are a slave, you should submit to your master as to the Lord. Correct.

Do you agree with that? Do you believe slaves should happy submit to their masters? Do you agree with the concept of slavery itself?

philologos wrote: »

I think what Paul is encouraging is entirely good, and entirely just.

I didn't ask you that. Stop stalling. Do you believe slavery is acceptable and moral?

philologos wrote: »

If you actually read the passage rather than faffing around with anachronisms you might actually see this too. Paul is describing a slave / master relationship, and how it should work in a Christian context.

Yes I know, because according to Paul Christianity has no problem with slavery, slavery is normal and moral according to Paul and in fact slaves should wilfully submit and partake in their own bondage.

philologos wrote: »

You claim that I post nonsense about the passage when I'm the one who is paying attention to it. Get a grip!

You are also the one trying really really really hard to avoid answer the question put to you.

Again this is why I knew such a discussion would be rather pointless. You are just stalling, you are refusing to comment on the actual morality of slavery itself. Because we know you don't think slavery is moral. But you have to marry that with what you believe is the gospel of God.

This is no different to Christians who know loving homosexual unions are not immoral, and try to marry that with the gospel of God.

You are all doing the same thing because none of you can actually follow the Bible as it is written. This rather pointless exercise has simply highlighted what I already said on the other thread.

Zombrex wrote: »

You want me to explain why slavery is objectionable?

No, I expect you to read what you've quoted honestly without ignoring it.

Zombrex wrote: »

This is why I was so reluctant to actually do this Phil, I knew you would stall for time by just posting nonsense and hoping I would give up and go away.

I'm not stalling anything, I'm reading the passage. You intentionally ignored verse 9 for some reason. If you're shocked that I'm actually reading the passage rather than expressing outrage at something that isn't there then be shocked.

I think it's wholly good. Paul is advocating that masters treat their slaves with the respect that they deserve.

Ephesians 6:9 wrote:

Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

What's fascinating is "do the same to them". Namely from verse 7 - 8, that they should render service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does they will receive back from the Lord.

It's somehow interesting that you raise this passage, and yet don't seem very interested in reading what it actually says about the relationship between masters and slaves. You claim that I ignore it, when I look to this very passage when I seek to serve my boss at work.

I'm asking you very simply what's wrong with the text in and of itself apart from applying extra-Biblical anachronisms that can't be found in the text to it?

Zombrex wrote: »

Slavery is an abusive situation between a master and slave.

What Paul is describing precludes abuse if you just read the passage. It's clear that Paul is saying that masters should treat their slaves in consideration of God, and that one should treat them as they were serving God Himself.

How could a master who was trying to serve God in how they treated their slaves encourage abuse?

It's like how people treat the previous section on marriage. It's never about the actual passage itself.

Zombrex wrote: »

And he is encouraging slaves to submit to their masters. He is encouraging slaves to put up with slavery. He is encouraging slavery.

He's saying that if you are a slave, you should submit to your master as to the Lord. Correct.

He's also saying that if you are a master, you should treat your slaves with respect and in the same way that you would treat God. If i note the "do the same to them" in the first clause of verse 9, which refers back to the previous section.

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you think slavery is moral? Not abusive slavery (what ever the heck you think that is).

Just slavery, is it immoral? I just want to hear you say you don't think slavery is immoral.

I think what Paul is encouraging is entirely good, and entirely just.

If you actually read the passage rather than faffing around with anachronisms you might actually see this too. Paul is describing a slave / master relationship, and how it should work in a Christian context.

I find it funny that you claim that I ignore Scripture, when I'm the one actually reading it, and I'm the one who is actually applying this to my life in terms of the work that I am doing on a daily basis. In reading Ephesians 6, I am listening to what God is actually telling me in respect to how I serve at work. Do it for God, and do it as you are working for God rather than men.

You claim that I post nonsense about the passage when I'm the one who is paying attention to it. Get a grip!

philologos wrote: »

The reason you posted it I presume you think that Paul's idea is objectionable. I'm asking in what way is it objectionable.

You want me to explain why slavery is objectionable?

This is why I was so reluctant to actually do this Phil, I knew you would stall for time by just posting nonsense and hoping I would give up and go away.

philologos wrote: »

If Paul is advocating for masters who are Christians to consider how their master in heaven has treated them, in treating their slaves, this precludes an abusive situation between a master and slave.

Slavery is an abusive situation between a master and slave.

philologos wrote: »

What's the problem with what Paul has noted from verses 5 - 9? He's encouraging for masters to treat their slaves as Christ has treated them. Unless you're claiming that Christ encourages abuse I can't see what problem arises.

And he is encouraging slaves to submit to their masters. He is encouraging slaves to put up with slavery. He is encouraging the propagation of slavery, because slavery was considered by Paul (and thus God as far as Paul was concerned) to be a natural order of things, rather than an immoral abuse as we now view it.

Not "abusive" slavery. Slavery. The removal of autonomy and civil rights of humans by the act of viewing and treating them as property through forced servitude.

philologos wrote: »

Moreover, how is this ignoring Paul as you've claimed I have?

Do you think slavery is moral? I just want to hear you say you don't think slavery is immoral, then I know you will arguing anything to try and save face.

J C wrote: »

Its like saying that you have the freedom to accept God ...
... and you have the freedom to reject Him.

You didn't answer the question.

Because God is just he has to punish us for our sin. But he loves us and thus doesn't want to. So he instead punishes Jesus in a transfer of punishment, sparing humanity from his full wrath.

You are saying he will not "force" this transfer of punishment on us. Why not? What happens if he does, why would it be bad?

HHobo wrote: »

Image if a group of nefarious scientists created a new species by manipulating DNA. They design this creature will an insatiable blood lust. It is part of this creatures nature. This creature is also sentient.
When these creatures eventually go on a killing spree, by your logic, the creators of these creatures bear absolutely no responsibility at all as the creatures have free will. You would be calling the people who want to hold the scientists responsible as "daft" for not understanding that they can't be held accountable as the creatures could have chosen not to go on a killing spree.

I don't think God designed us with an insatiable blood lust. Our inclination towards sin is a result of the fall.

HHobo wrote: »

God could have created humans as free agents without the strong desires to commit what you are calling "sins". He chose to create us broken, essentially. Unless you wish to suggest that he was incapable of creating humans who are both have free will and a strong preference for being virtuous?

You mean creating deterministic beings where God has programmed to them to such an extent where their free choice is irrelevant?

See the thing is, if God had created us deterministic beings who sinned, He would be responsible. Since He clearly hasn't, He's not.

HHobo wrote: »

When you create a thing, you are at least some way responsible for its actions are you not?

Not in the case of autonomous beings who of their own volition have chosen to do X rather than Y.

HHobo wrote: »

If I raise a child, teaching him everyday to hate Jews. I talk endlessly about how noble and visionary Hitler was. I feed him a constant stream of negative stories of Jews and cultivate in him a deep hatred.

I am entirely blameless if he grows up hating Jews?

He has free will. He can decide not to hate? The responsibility is with him. It's not that complex surely?... well I think it is complex.
God has done far worse than simply molding minds to prefer sin, he has buried these desires deep in our natures. If he had not, it would be a relatively trivial thing for at least some people to live completely sinless lives. Scripture practically delights in telling us how sinful we are and that none can possibly live up to God's standard.

This example is utterly irrelevant. God didn't teach us to sin.

Scripture doesn't delight in sin. Scripture delights in salvation. In us believing and trusting in Jesus and acknowledging Him as Lord.

I don't think God has done what is evil, we have. In the face of this, God has shown us immeasurable favour which we just don't deserve.

HHobo wrote: »

Do you still think you answered the question I asked?

Yes, I do. I certainly have now.

HHobo wrote: »

I don't agree with that. I think if a human acted as God has, you wouldn't even dream of defending their actions. You start from the position that God is good and you try to justify that position afterwards. Do you deny that it is axiomatic to you that God is good?

God has acted without reproach. He has authority over Creation.

HHobo wrote: »

I would expect you to call someone, or something, an asshole when they are acting like one and not make special exceptions for your favorite deity:)

Except God isn't an asshole by any reasonable standard. From looking over the broad course of revelation, and from looking to Scripture, I can't honestly claim that God is an asshole for legitimately visiting His judgement to those who continually decided to do what is evil rather than what was according to His standard. That's what I'd expect of a holy and a righteous God.

HHobo wrote: »

Do you honestly think God's treatment of Job was just from start to finish?
He esentially had Job's entire family murdered on a bet :eek:

The sum total point of Job is that even one who in the midst of suffering can persevere. Job acknowledges that suffering is a present reality, and that suffering has a purpose in God's overall plan which is entirely consistent with other Scripture such as Genesis 50.

In other ways Job is encouraging, it shows that Satan has only a limited jurisdiction over this world as a result of sin, and suffering only has a limited reign.

I think God was right, and I think that suffering has a bigger purpose than what we see on the surface.

Zombrex wrote: »

I think slavery leads to reduced civil rights, because that is what slavery is.

What in your post are you referring to by "these issues"? You think the only thing wrong with slavery is when masters threaten or abuse their slaves? You realize that slavery itself is a form of abuse, right? That not allowing someone self determination is in of itself a violation of civil rights?

Or are you saying that if everyone did as Paul says we would actually end up with no slavery at all? Because that ain't what Paul is saying.

The reason you posted it I presume you think that Paul's idea is objectionable. I'm asking in what way is it objectionable. If Paul is advocating for masters who are Christians to consider how their master in heaven has treated them, in treating their slaves, this precludes an abusive situation between a master and slave.

What's the problem with what Paul has noted from verses 5 - 9? He's encouraging for masters to treat their slaves as Christ has treated them. Unless you're claiming that Christ encourages abuse I can't see what problem arises.

It seems clearly like you're applying a modern colonial based idea to what Paul is advocating where there is no justification for this in the passage itself. In a sense you're committing an anachronism.

Moreover, how is this ignoring Paul as you've claimed I have?

philologos wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. If masters served their slaves, as Christ has served humanity as verse 9 and also the beginning of this section in verse 21 where it says that Christians should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ before looking to the relationship between husbands and wives (5:22-33), children and parents (6:1-3), and slaves and masters (6:5-9) there wouldn't be these issues, unless one is to seriously suggest that serving ones slaves as Christ their master would would lead to reduced civil rights?

I think slavery leads to reduced civil rights, because that is what slavery is.

What in your post are you referring to by "these issues"? You think the only thing wrong with slavery is when masters threaten or abuse their slaves? You realize that slavery itself is a form of abuse, right? That not allowing someone self determination is in of itself a violation of civil rights?

Or are you saying that if everyone did as Paul says we would actually end up with no slavery at all? Because that ain't what Paul is saying.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

Why? What is the bad thing that happens if he "forces his love on us" (ie decides not to make us suffer for all eternity in a lake of fire).

Its like saying I'm not going to force you to accept my loving offer of not shooting you in the face with a shotgun :rolleyes:

Its like saying that you have the freedom to accept God ...
... and you have the freedom to reject Him.

Zombrex wrote: »

So in your mind slavery is ok so long as the slaves submit to their masters and the masters do not threaten their slaves?

"Slavery" as in treating certain people as having reduced civil rights and personal authority who are bought and sold among free peoples as a form of personal property and held in bondage?

Because Paul certainly thinks it is ok, as does God apparently.

I think you're missing the point. If masters served their slaves, as Christ has served humanity as verse 9 and also the beginning of this section in verse 21 where it says that Christians should submit to one another out of reverence for Christ before looking to the relationship between husbands and wives (5:22-33), children and parents (6:1-3), and slaves and masters (6:5-9) there wouldn't be these issues, unless one is to seriously suggest that serving ones slaves as Christ their master would would lead to reduced civil rights?

Unless you want to explain how being a master who models the mastership of Christ could be an oppressive thing, as that's what Paul is pointing to in Ephesians.

philologos wrote: »

The Ephesians 6 model does not encourage oppressive masters. It encourages masters to treat their slaves with respect, as Christ has treated them. This is why I think that the New Testament doesn't encourage anything of the kind of colonial slavery.

So in your mind slavery is ok so long as the slaves submit to their masters and the masters do not threaten their slaves?

"Slavery" as in treating certain people as having reduced civil rights and personal authority who are bought and sold among free peoples as a form of personal property and held in bondage?

Because Paul certainly thinks it is ok, as does God apparently.

Zombrex wrote: »

Paul's instructions to Christian slaves, encouraging them to "wholeheartly" submit to their masters and that doing so is the will of God (entirely consistent with the Old Testament where God regulates the practice of slavery)

Ephesians 6:
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

Ephesians is a book about what the church is and how Christians should live as a result of this. I notice that you've snipped the passage. Let's look at the whole block:

Ephesians 6:5-9 wrote:

Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a bondservant or is free. Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.

Paul is saying that Christians should submit to their masters as they would to Jesus. Following Jesus should make a difference in serving ones master.

Notice that Paul is also saying that masters who are Christians should stop threatening, and that they should know that God is ultimately the master of all.

I don't see what is so controversial about this. In fact I and many other Christians use this passage and other passages in Colossians, and 1 Peter to submit to God's will in terms of our work, even to the unkind (1 Peter 2:19).

The New Testament passages exclusively address how Christians are meant to live in a non-Christian society, and how Christians are meant to live distinctively in that world, and in that society. Slavery was a reality to be dealt with.

I don't see anything wrong with what Paul or Peter have written, I think there's much in their writings that can inspire us to live distinctively in a non-Christian age.

The Ephesians 6 model does not encourage oppressive masters. It encourages masters to treat their slaves with respect, as Christ has treated them. This is why I think that the New Testament doesn't encourage anything of the kind of colonial slavery.

J C wrote: »

but He wiill not force His love on us

Why? What is the bad thing that happens if he "forces his love on us" (ie decides not to make us suffer for all eternity in a lake of fire).

Its like saying I'm not going to force you to accept my loving offer of not shooting you in the face with a shotgun :rolleyes:

Paul's instructions to Christian slaves, encouraging them to "wholeheartly" submit to their masters and that doing so is the will of God (entirely consistent with the Old Testament where God regulates the practice of slavery)

Ephesians 6:
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

J C

Zombrex wrote: »

But now you are saying well God isn't going to do that for the bad people, not for the people who call him an asshole. What?? He is going to save the murders, the rapists, the warmongers. But he objects to saving the people who call him an asshole? If I do that I'm undeserving of salvation? But when I was murdering and raping and launching nuclear weapons I was still deserving of salvation?

The basis of Christian salvation is that God loves us despite what we have done. So why do we have to believe *cough* because Jesus was a cult leader who wanted people to worship him *cough*

The point is that God is an infinitely loving and just God.
He loves us and wants to Save us ... but He wiill not force His love on us ... so we must accept His infinite loving Salvation ... and be humble enough to ask for it (and repent of our sin).
... the alternative is to submit oneself to God's infinite justice ... and I wouldn't do that, if I were you ... but it's entirely up to you.

philologos wrote: »

You still don't understand if you're asking me that question.

Belief is the only way possible to bring salvation. If we were judging by works, we've sinned and are guilty and are fully deserving of God's wrath. A just God, without Jesus as our substitute would have to visit the penalty of our sin on us instead.

If we are guilty and if there is no other way that we can be unguilty, then we are condemned. There's no other way around it, other than Jesus. He came to rescue us as a free gift if we acknowledge Him and follow Him as Lord.

It's not really much to ask to be honest. Is it?

You didn't answer the question, you just explained that we cannot be saved through works. You didn't explain why belief is necessary.

By Christian logic I am guilt of rebellion against God's wishes, and thus deserving of punishment. But because Jesus took that punishment for me I am spared from punishment (note punishment, not simply not being allowed into God's house).

But I have to believe in Jesus. Why exactly? I am still guilty and by Christian logic nothing I do can spare me from punishment, only what Jesus can do. So why do I have to believe. That is an action I am expected to do.

philologos wrote: »

Or do you expect to receive God's favour while rejecting Him, calling Him and asshole amongst other things?

Yes, that is the whole point. We are all guilty of sin. We cannot be saved by our actions alone. But God loves us, and despite how wicked we are he wants to spare us from hell, a hell we deserve. So he sends Jesus to take our punishment for us, sparing us from hell despite how wicked we are.

But now you are saying well God isn't going to do that for the bad people, not for the people who call him an asshole. What?? He is going to save the murders, the rapists, the warmongers. But he objects to saving the people who call him an asshole? If I do that I'm undeserving of salvation? But when I was murdering and raping and launching nuclear weapons I was still deserving of salvation?

The basis of Christian salvation is that God loves us despite what we have done. So why do we have to believe *cough* because Jesus was a cult leader who wanted people to worship him *cough*

HHobo

J C wrote: »

Are you guys Atheists ... or simply anti-Theists?
... a lot of your line of questioning indicates that you know that God exists (so you're not an Atheist)

Hi JC,

Personally, I don't believe that God exists. I am happy to grant the premise though in order to investigate other aspects of religion. I think religious people are just as moral and decent as the irreligious but thier faith often requires of them that they support some fairly odious ideas. I am sure they must have some way of thinking about the whole thing that allows them to view, what to me are hideously immoral ideas, as being quite moral. I am interested in understanding the presuppositions they hold and the perspective that they are coming from that facillitates that view.

J C wrote: »

... it's just that you don't like Him (so you're an anti-Theist)

What you are describing would essentially be Anti-Yahweh Theism.

I am in many respects an anti-Theist. Anti-Theist is really just someone who believes that religion is a bad thing.
Theism = belief in a God.
Anti-theism = Opposition to belief in God. In practice it is generally the view that religion is harmful.
Atheist and anti-theist are entirely compatible with each other and in my estimation most atheists are at least a little anti-theist, if for no other reason they believe it is a whopper of a lie.

Just to be clear as anti-theist can often be misinterpreted as being anti-religious person:

I oppose religion because I think it has a negative effect on society (not always or completely but in general), it has been a very effective source and tool of discrimination, it has been a retarding force working against scientific progress (though thankfully to a lesser extent today - today it serves more as a barrier to scientific education than actual scientific progress) and also because I think it is untrue. I would say that religion may sometimes be a positive thing but in my opinion the cons far outweigh the pros. I think the pros can be achieved without religion. I don't hate or even dislike religious people. I find myself frustrated by them a lot but I don't think they are bad people. While I might have some questions about their rationality, I also don't think that you have to be stupid to be religious. I've met some very intelligent, insightful, thoughly-decent people who are religious.

The TLDR version:
Religion: bad.
Religious people: good or bad on an individual basis.

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Have a read of your own words here and show me how this isn't against the charter, never mind discourteous.
These megathreads are tiresome because of posts like this.

Not going to apologise. JC's constant, and presumably intentional, missing of the point and misrepresentation of arguments and positions is, after all these years, getting a little tiresome.

MrP

Doc Farrell

MrPudding wrote: »

I would consider myself to be an agnostic-atheist who also happens to be anti-theist.

I am sorry if it is beyond your level of comprehension, but sometimes people having a growed up conversation will allow an assumption for the purposes...........Please try to keep up. I know it's tough.

MrP

Have a read of your own words here and show me how this isn't against the charter, never mind discourteous.
These megathreads are tiresome because of posts like this.

J C wrote: »

Are you guys Atheists ... or simply anti-Theists?
... a lot of your line of questioning indicates that you know that God exists (so you're not an Atheist) ... it's just that you don't like Him (so you're an anti-Theist).

I would consider myself to be an agnostic-atheist who also happens to be anti-theist.

I am sorry if it is beyond your level of comprehension, but sometimes people having a growed up conversation will allow an assumption for the purposes of that conversation.

Clearly I could say, "you god does not exist, therefore your argument is useless" but that is not very productive.

Tommy, like most people, has managed to grasp this concept. Please try to keep up. I know it's tough.

MrP

tommy2bad

No JC, their saying that God as defined, if he exists in not good, just or worthy of respect other than out of fear of retribution.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Good effort. A few of us have tried this line of questioning. Expect inadequate answers and complete dodging of the question.

MrP

Are you guys Atheists ... or simply anti-Theists?
... a lot of your line of questioning indicates that you know that God exists (so you're not an Atheist) ... it's just that you don't like Him (so you're an anti-Theist).