Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

HHobo wrote: »

Phil,

Answer this question honestly.

If I took you as a slave, took away your freedom, you would be fine with it as long as I treated you in the fashion Paul describes?

I suspect you would not be remotely fine with it. I suspect you would consider it a terrible crime. Am I wrong in there assumptions?

You seem to be wilfully ignoring the issue everyone has been pressing you on. It is not a matter of treatment. Most people today consider the idea of owning another person to be an entirely heineous concept. It doesn't matter if you treat them like a king or serve them every waking moment. Slavery as a concept, the very core of the idea is utterly immoral.

No, actually I've answered the question rather clearly.

You guys are willfully ignoring what has been said in the passage and are committing an anachronism.

I'm actually a little disappointed at Zombrex' dishonesty and his Pharasaic style test.

You don't really believe in Ephesians 6:5-9 right?
1) Yes. OK I'll block you while assuming something clearly incorrect about what Paul is saying.

2) No. Hahaha you're not really a Christian are you?

I've made my position clear, I think what Paul has said encourages reform in the thinking of Roman society in respect to slavery by introducing Jesus as the example both for slaves and masters, I think this passage has a lot to teach about employers and employees in modern work contexts.

I'm done in respect to this and I've been amply clear.

I'm honestly tired of the filthy tactics used by Zombrex and others here. Dishonesty of the highest order. No matter what I said I'd be subject to this kind of nonsense. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'd rather be damned for following the Gospel.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

No, actually I've answered the question rather clearly.

You guys are willfully ignoring what has been said in the passage and are committing an anachronism.

I'm actually a little disappointed at Zombrex' dishonesty and his Pharasaic style test.

You don't really believe in Ephesians 6:5-9 right?
1) Yes. OK I'll block you while assuming something clearly incorrect about what Paul is saying.

2) No. Hahaha you're not really a Christian are you?

I've made my position clear, I think what Paul has said encourages reform in the thinking of Roman society in respect to slavery by introducing Jesus as the example both for slaves and masters, I think this passage has a lot to teach about employers and employees in modern work contexts.

I'm done in respect to this and I've been amply clear.

I'm honestly tired of the filthy tactics used by Zombrex and others here. Dishonesty of the highest order. No matter what I said I'd be subject to this kind of nonsense. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'd rather be damned for following the Gospel.

I haven't seen you say anywhere that you don't condone slavery and that <insert poster name here> should apologise for misrepresenting you in a dishonest way regarding slavery.

I can't understand why you haven't already made a simple statement to the effect of "I don't condone slavery" already. Say that much and you can get back to discussing bible passages. But as long as people see what looks to be you implicitly condoning slavery, there are going to be a few shocked people quizzing you about slavery outside of the passages that were up for discussion.

Philo, you said that you have no problem with slavery, in the light of Paul's teaching.

Let's look at that quote again.

Originally Posted by philologos
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.

TBH, I found your comments yesterday to be incredibly depressing. Slavery IS inherent abuse. Can you see that? It seems to me that you have completely suspended reason and decency with your comments.

One final observation: you think that Paul's views on 1st Century slave-master relations are relevant to modern employer-employee relations, and yet you accuse others of committing an anachronism?

pauldla wrote: »

Philo, you said that you have no problem with slavery, in the light of Paul's teaching.

Let's look at that quote again.

TBH, I found your comments yesterday to be incredibly depressing. Slavery IS inherent abuse. Can you see that? It seems to me that you have completely suspended reason and decency with your comments.

One final observation: you think that Paul's views on 1st Century slave-master relations are relevant to modern employer-employee relations, and yet you accuse others of committing an anachronism?

Only because you willfully and intentionally misunderstand what is being said.

There's no point. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. It's such a vain exercise engaging with people who refuse to listen.

This has been quite a revelation and I'll need to think about whether it is worth posting to people who are intrinsically dishonest.

That's rather tragic I feel. Indeed why bother? I'm done on this.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Only because you willfully and intentionally misunderstand what is being said.

There's no point. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. It's such a vain exercise engaging with people who refuse to listen.

This has been quite a revelation and I'll need to think about whether it is worth posting to people who are intrinsically dishonest.

That's rather tragic I feel. Indeed why bother? I'm done on this.

That's a rather unfair comment tbh. You've been repeatedly asked about your opinion on slavery and you (for whatever reason) haven't corrected anyone who has suggested you condone it.

At best you could say people are incorrect about what they have said, but a simple statement from yourself would put an end to the confusion. I really don't understand your aversion to correcting people (presuming they haven't mispresented your stance on slavery).

From a reading of the posts leading up to this, I don't think anyone has been dishonest based on your responses to their questions. This isn't meant to be an attack on you philo, just feedback from reading the conversation that developed on the thread and your subsequent accusations of dishonesty that were thrown around.

HHobo

philologos wrote: »

Only because you willfully and intentionally misunderstand what is being said.

There's no point. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. It's such a vain exercise engaging with people who refuse to listen.

This has been quite a revelation and I'll need to think about whether it is worth posting to people who are intrinsically dishonest.

That's rather tragic I feel. Indeed why bother? I'm done on this.

I have to say Phil, I think you are being quite dishonest yourself here. I wasn't involved in the discussion. I saw you doing what looked an awful lot like condoning some version of benevolent slavery. I asked you a simple question. You refused to answer on the grounds that people are just refusing to listen to you. I have read your responses to people and I just don't get where it is you think you are being misrepresented or your actual point is not being listened to. You have ignored, time and again, the questions asked by almost everyone you debated with; if you condone slavery in principle or you think it is acceptable is some form? A very simple question.

You appear to want to have it both ways. You don't want to come right out and say "I'm ok with slavery if it conforms to the following...." because you are probably a good enough person to know that this is indefensible.

You also don't want to acknowledge that Paul might have been defending a morally indefensible practice as it would be problematic for the level of faith you have in the bible and the characters in it. So you want to equivocate in the middle, refusing to denounce every possible form of owning people and yet getting offended and complaining about not be listened to when anyone notices.

I am more than willing to listen to any argument you might have to make but I have serious doubt about how honest you are willing to be in a conversation that might result in the bible appearing to teach, or actually teaching, immorality.

I've been really really clear about my position if you just read my posts. That's the frustrating part. Paul's also rather clear in that he's trying to reform slavery in Ephesians 6:5-9. There's nothing more I can really give you.

There's nothing wrong with that passage and a heck of a lot of good the world still has to learn from it.

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

I've been really really clear about my position if you just read my posts. That's the frustrating part. Paul's also rather clear in that he's trying to reform slavery in Ephesians 6:5-9. There's nothing more I can really give you.

There's nothing wrong with that passage and a heck of a lot of good the world still has to learn from it.

Slavery exists today, in the 21st Century.

If today's slavemasters treat their slaves like Jesus treated us, is this still be a problem worth discussing?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I've been really really clear about my position if you just read my posts. That's the frustrating part. Paul's also rather clear in that he's trying to reform slavery in Ephesians 6:5-9. There's nothing more I can really give you.

There's nothing wrong with that passage and a heck of a lot of good the world still has to learn from it.

No, you haven't. If you had you wouldn't have multiple posters repeatedly asking you to verify/deny that you condone slavery?

Do you plan answering what should be a very simple question? I'm honestly amazed it's dragged out as long as it did. I really thought you'd tell people straight off the bat that you were totally opposed to slavery, yet sadly such a declartion hasn't appeared

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

I've been really really clear about my position if you just read my posts. That's the frustrating part. Paul's also rather clear in that he's trying to reform slavery in Ephesians 6:5-9. There's nothing more I can really give you.

There's nothing wrong with that passage and a heck of a lot of good the world still has to learn from it.

But you aren't being clear. I think we all agree that slavery isn't something to be reformed. It is something to be destroyed.

What we don't understand is whether you are claiming Paul genuinely supports slavery if it is sanitised to some extent, or if you are claiming Paul would also want to see slavery destroyed, but is not saying so because he is afraid of the Roman empire.

tommy2bad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Wrong according to what nature?

Human nature; if we understand that to mean 'made in the image of God'.

And people, phil isn't defending slavery, he's defending Paul, I thought that was obvious.

Sacksian wrote: »

Slavery exists today, in the 21st Century.

If today's slavemasters treat their slaves like Jesus treated us, is this still be a problem worth discussing?

No it wouldn't be worth discussing at all, because the problem would be pretty much eradicated overnight. Even the mere possibility of an abusive relationship would be blown away over night. That's my point. If Jesus treated us with unmerited favour and abounding mercy, what would be the consequence if we treated others like this in our world.

That's what Ephesians is dealing with in 5:22-33 in respect to marriage, 6:1-4 in respect to parents and children, and 6:5-9 in terms of slavery.

That's my point.

philologos wrote: »

Only because you willfully and intentionally misunderstand what is being said.

There's no point. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. It's such a vain exercise engaging with people who refuse to listen.

This has been quite a revelation and I'll need to think about whether it is worth posting to people who are intrinsically dishonest.

That's rather tragic I feel. Indeed why bother? I'm done on this.

If you take comfort from describing me as intrinsically dishonest, Phil, or by asserting that I am wilfully and intentionally misunderstanding you, then so be it. Attack, it would seem, is the only defence left to you?

But, as I said, I have found your comments above to be depressing, and talk of 'reforming slavery in a Christian context' (if I may be allowed that summation) is absurd.

How can one purchase another human being 'with unmerited favour and abounding mercy'?
How can one own another 'with unmerited favour and abounding mercy'?
How can one sell another 'with unmerited favour and abounding mercy'?
How can one have complete and exclusive legal ownership of the children of another 'with unmerited favour and abounding mercy'?
How can one have the right to sell those children 'with unmerited favour and abounding mercy'?

I could go on, but my point has been well made. Now, I understand the dilemma you are in: as you said yourself, on this point you are damned no matter that you say. One option is to openly condone slavery; this is morally abhorrent. Another is to claim that Paul was writing for his times (and attempt, ludicrously, to parallel 1st Century Roman slavery to modern employment practices). But be careful: this might be opening the door to moral relativism (and that's not good, is it?). Another (unthinkable) option is to ignore or discard what Paul wrote: but if you can do that with one part of the New Testement, it throws all the rest into question, too. A final option is to call me a big fat dirty liar and say that I just don't listen. God be with the days of stakes and firewood, eh?

pauldla wrote: »

A final option is to call me a big fat dirty liar and say that I just don't listen. God be with the days of stakes and firewood, eh?

That's a rotten comment and you should be ashamed of yourself. Many people with beliefs similar to my own were burned in the Inquisition.

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

No it wouldn't be worth discussing at all, because the problem would be pretty much eradicated overnight. Even the mere possibility of an abusive relationship would be blown away over night. That's my point. If Jesus treated us with unmerited favour and abounding mercy, what would be the consequence if we treated others like this in our world.

That's what Ephesians is dealing with in 5:22-33 in respect to marriage, 6:1-4 in respect to parents and children, and 6:5-9 in terms of slavery.

That's my point.

From a slave's point of view, abuse is not the problem with the relationship. It's the actual master-slave relationship!!

You need to explicitly condemn slavery in all its forms - i.e. whether there's a benign/loving master or not.

Reform is not the same as abolition.

I think that's what everyone else is saying.

philologos wrote: »

That's a rotten comment and you should be ashamed of yourself. Many people with beliefs similar to my own were burned in the Inquisition.

And many who have challenged or disagreed with those beliefs, Philo, atheists included. You certainly have no monopoly on being persecuted. Having said that, I apologise for the remark, if it caused offence.

Sacksian wrote: »

From a slave's point of view, abuse is not the problem with the relationship. It's the actual master-slave relationship!!

You need to explicitly condemn slavery in all its forms - i.e. whether there's a benign/loving master or not.

Reform is not the same as abolition.

I think that's what everyone else is saying.

I don't need to do anything. Paul's bang on in Ephesians 6:5-9. If that was how it worked slavery as we know it would no longer be an issue. Heck, if Paul's advice was followed by most employees it would transform the workplace entirely. If everyone worked with all their strength and if those in authority over us treated us as Jesus did that would be far better than the present reality.

I'm going to stick to this because Paul's right in Ephesians. I have no doubt about it. Any issue that has been raised so far including the ones in pauldla's post are not in the passage being discussed.

Virgil°

philologos wrote: »

If everyone worked with all their strength and if those in authority over us treated us as Jesus did that would be far better than the present reality.[/b].

There is such a chasm between slavery and someone being in, say , a managerial position in a company. I'd be surprised if you couldn't see that.

Do you know what slavery means? And as before do you condone it?

I don't want to know what Paul says, a yes or no will suffice. That shouldn't be too hard. If you've already given a yes or no in a previous post would you mind linking me? I can't see it.

Virgil° wrote: »

There is such a chasm between slavery and someone being in, say , a managerial position in a company. I'd be surprised if you couldn't see that.

Do you know what slavery means? And as before do you condone it?

I don't want to know what Paul says, a yes or no will suffice. That shouldn't be too hard. If you've already given a yes or no in a previous post would you mind linking me? I can't see it.

Zombrex initially put Ephesians 6:5-9 to me. That's all I'm discussing. I'm only interested in what is said in that section. All I've said is that I think that that passage isn't problematic in the slightest.

I'm not and never have been discussing it more generally and I have no interest in doing so because I was asked about Ephesians.

Virgil°

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex initially put Ephesians 6:5-9 to me. That's all I'm discussing. I'm only interested in what is said in that section. All I've said is that I think that that passage isn't problematic in the slightest.

I'm not and never have been discussing it more generally and I have no interest in doing so because I was asked about Ephesians.

I've an idea why you're so hesitant. Hhobo put it rather more eloquently than I could.
But I think you should have an interest. Your reputation is rather at stake here. You could put the entire debacle to rest with a simple yes or no. Its so easy.
Here i'll show you the two examples you've to pick from :

1. No I do no condone slavery in any shape or form.
2. I do condone slavery in full or a loving mild form of it.

You have to see our point here. I'm sure you'd be disgusted if someone said to you that they condone rape. Now what if they said they condone rape, but only if the rapist does not use any harsh language, wears a condom and buys the victim a meal afterwards?
I'm sure you'd be equally disgusted and you wouldn't be taking :"Because my prophet said to be as loving as possible while raping someone, if everyone did as he said rape wouldn't even be an issue" as an excuse.

It's a completely equivalent situation for us with you thus far, rape as with slavery and many other crimes is regarded worldwide as reprehensible, until you explicitly let us know otherwise we've no choice but to make assumptions about you.

HHobo

philologos wrote: »

I'm going to stick to this because Paul's right in Ephesians. I have no doubt about it. Any issue that has been raised so far including the ones in pauldla's post are not in the passage being discussed.

Paul is telling slaves to obey their masters. He is telling slaves to be slaves and be quick about it! It is an obnoxious message. He is saying that a slave (a person robbed or their freedom and pressed against their will in to a life of servitude) should not only accept their situation but they should put their back into it as this is the right thing to do! He was not only defending slavery he was giving it God's blessing. God rewards the good that people do (seems against the grace doctrine - or are there rewards on top of salvation?) and slaves obeying their masters is clearly described as a good thing.

I have been trying very, very hard to withhold judgement in this discussion. I wanted to hold the door open as much as possible for a point of view that I might be missing. At this point I can only conclude that you are ok with the idea of one person having ownership of another in the chattel sense, just so long as they are really nice about it. To say I find this point of view reprehensible is being polite in the extreme.

If anyone needs an example of how otherwise moral people can be corrupted by their blind adherence to religious doctrine, here is it.

This may seem awfully harsh to you Phil and I know you are trying your best to rationalise and soften the idea but you are at the core, condoning slavery. It's form is immaterial. In 2013, you are defending one of the very few practices that is now considered a moral outrage by almost everyone on earth. I can't begin to fathom the kind of mental gymnastics it must take to caveat this practice into morally acceptable behaviour.

pauldla wrote: »

I could go on, but my point has been well made. Now, I understand the dilemma you are in: as you said yourself, on this point you are damned no matter that you say. One option is to openly condone slavery; this is morally abhorrent. Another is to claim that Paul was writing for his times (and attempt, ludicrously, to parallel 1st Century Roman slavery to modern employment practices). But be careful: this might be opening the door to moral relativism (and that's not good, is it?). Another (unthinkable) option is to ignore or discard what Paul wrote: but if you can do that with one part of the New Testement, it throws all the rest into question, too. A final option is to call me a big fat dirty liar and say that I just don't listen. God be with the days of stakes and firewood, eh?

In this post you are aligning yourself with the many other posters who are demanding that Phil defend his personal views on slavery. Seeing as you want to take this "high road" position, for balance can you outline your position on child labor in China? Do you unequivocally condemn it, in the same fashion as I assume you would condemn all other human slavery.

If you cannot condemn child labor in China then I would not call you a big fat dirty liar but I would call you a hypocrite in the same mold as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. One cannot be selective about human rights violations.

tommy2bad

nagirrac wrote: »

In this post you are aligning yourself with the many other posters who are demanding that Phil defend his personal views on slavery. Seeing as you want to take this "high road" position, for balance can you outline your position on child labor in China? Do you unequivocally condemn it, in the same fashion as I assume you would condemn all other human slavery.

If you cannot condemn child labor in China then I would not call you a big fat dirty liar but I would call you a hypocrite in the same mold as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. One cannot be selective about human rights violations.

Not addressed at me but for the sake of clarity;
I an not condoning any human rights violation, I condemn them all equally. I'm pretty sure phil and all right thinking people do too.
However what is being discussed is not my or phills attitude to these things but Pauls and by implication God's.
Lets stick to the point and stop the mudslinging and misdirection.

nagirrac wrote: »

In this post you are aligning yourself with the many other posters who are demanding that Phil defend his personal views on slavery. Seeing as you want to take this "high road" position, for balance can you outline your position on child labor in China? Do you unequivocally condemn it, in the same fashion as I assume you would condemn all other human slavery.

If you cannot condemn child labor in China then I would not call you a big fat dirty liar but I would call you a hypocrite in the same mold as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. One cannot be selective about human rights violations.

I believe a similiar question has been asked before, has it not? Over to you, Jimi...

JimiTime wrote: »

....
I also think of all those people who get outraged about this stuff, I hope you are not wearing Nike, Levis, GAP etc. In many respects, a lot of people pontificate about these things while reaping the rewards of global slavery, child labour and all sorts of morally questionable regimes etc. So before casting stones from high horses, I think you need to check for greenhouses (Wow, that was cliché-tastic ) Anyway...
....

Zombrex replied thus.

Zombrex wrote: »

....
Well no actually I'm not, I try and be quite careful about the ethical sourcing of my products.

But that is some what irrelevant, isn't it? Do you actually want everyone to stop caring about slavery because they buy cloths from sweat shops? Would that improve things? "Slavery has made a startling come back, but at least we got rid of all the hypocrites"

If the best defence you can come up with for someone supporting slavery is well sure don't you all buy cloths from unethical factories, I think you need to have a think about your moral priorities and what you are attempting to achieve by that.
....

So my response would be similiar to Zombrex: of course I oppose child labour, but what is the relevance of your question? Surely 'moral high road' suggests that which is morally proper? Or am I to be labelled a hypocrite because I live in China...? I'm sorry, I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Let me see if I can wrap my head around this. On a Christianity forum we have atheists who are questioning the morality of a God they don't believe in, and mock those who hold such beliefs. In my view that is "strong" atheism aligned with the likes of Hitchens and Harris. The fake outrage is frankly sickening, in the context of the hypocricy of leading atheists on moral questions.

You simply cannot be selective on the question of human rights abuses. Christopher Hitchens built a career on mocking the morality of religious organizations, yet supported the invasion of Iraq and the untold suffering that unjust war precipitated. In fact not just supported it at the beginning but continued to support it long after the majority of people even in America had changed their views. Sam Harris, another who rants on religious moral issues, is a firm supporter of the state of Israel, a theocracy. Apparently human rights abuses are fine if those impacted are Palestinians. If you take these positions in my view you simply cannot be taken seriously on moral questions. Any atheist with a balanced consistent moral viewpoint should denounce Harris and the late Hitchens on these issues.

Here is how I see this specific issue. For context I am not religious although I would attach value to the teachings of the various mystical traditions and teachers over the centuries. One can only judge these people in the context of the time they were writing. These were people who believed in a personal God and tried to express how that God would like us to live our lives. Once you get to the point in human history where spiritual teachers realized that God has granted free will to humans, then from that point onwards there's really no point blaming God on moral issues.

I suspect most labor in the Roman empire was slave labor, similar to other empires of that era. I don't think they had unions, collective bargaining and such. In the context of a brutally oppressive regime where slavery was the norm, I can only assume Paul was encouraging people to live with humility (which of course was the message of Christ, "turn the other cheek", etc). What was the alternative? Rebellion? We saw how well that worked out for the local population in the century afterwards.

Of course slavery is unjust. However I believe the message in this particular text is to be humble and treat others as you would like to be treated, regardless of your personal circumstances in life. This seems entirely consistent with the teachings of Christ.

Doc Farrell

Paul's mission was bigger than any political or social reform.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

It was because of words like these, among others, that he lost his head. He is saying in these lines that all people are equal in the eyes of God. At the time there were a million slaves in Rome alone.

Benny_Cake

I would think that it is clear that Paul's (there is some debate as to whether Paul was the author of Ephesians, at least directly, but let's assume he is, for the sake of argument) remarks on slaves, along with much of Ephesians, formed part of the "household code" - instructions to husbands, wives, parents, children, masters and slaves. He was describing the way Christians should deal with each other, but to really appreciate this we'd have to read it in the way that an early Christian living in a Greek city in the Roman empire would have read it. In it's time, it was quite a radical message. Is it disappointing that it didn't read "Masters, set your slaves free"? Yes, not least because the verse was misused by proponents of slavery (although a great many of those opposed to slavery also drew inspiration from the Bible). It was still quite radical in it's time though and is probably as far as any Roman citizen would have been prepared to go given that to go any further would have been tantamount to calling for a slave revolt, with unfortunate consequences for Paul (mind you, he still got into trouble in any case).

I enjoy the debate in here as much as the next person but it is strange to see atheists taking an approach to the Bible that is every bit as literal as the most fundamentalist of Christians!

Edit: I see Doc Farrell put it better than I ever could have.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not addressed at me but for the sake of clarity;
I an not condoning any human rights violation, I condemn them all equally. I'm pretty sure phil and all right thinking people do too.
However what is being discussed is not my or phills attitude to these things but Pauls and by implication God's.
Lets stick to the point and stop the mudslinging and misdirection.

I agree all right minded people condemn all human rights violations equally. My point is that leading strong atheists such as Hitchens and Harris are selective in their condemnation and thus should not alone be disregarded on moral questions as they are unreliable, but condemned by fellow atheists who are right minded.

I answered previously on the question at hand. There is a fundamental misunderstanding between the atheists on this forum and the religious view. The religious view is that our physical lives are temporary and there is a broader eternal spiritual universe, that man's destiny in that universe is based on his individual deeds during his physical lifetime. Regardless of whether you believe this or not, you have to attempt to interpret the religious view in that context.

In my humble opinion (and I am not religious), the worldview of an atheist and the worldview of a religious person are completely incompatible as an atheist cannot interpret the beliefs of a religious person.

pauldla wrote: »

of course I oppose child labour, but what is the relevance of your question? Surely 'moral high road' suggests that which is morally proper? Or am I to be labelled a hypocrite because I live in China...? I'm sorry, I don't see the point you are trying to make.

Good to hear, I applaud you. I am not accusing you of being a hypocrite for living in China and apologize if you interpreted that as it was not my intention. I raised the issue because child labor is modern day slavery and China is the worst offender in this regard.

The relevance of the question is we have to be consistent in opposing all human rights violations. I assume you would agree with me that the views of Hitchens and Harris should be condemned for being selective on moral issues. Personally I have zero admiration for someone who supports "some" human rights violations.

What I see on this thread is an attempt to label Christians as supporters of slavery. It is a completely dishonest argument and frankly an argument form ignorance as I have pointed out in my other posts here.