A Christmas Story

muichimotsu · Jan 17, 2020

thomas_t said:
Abhorrent? Sometimes people reject freedoms.

I conclude, people sometimes reject freedom and this is why it is a problem for Jesus installing more of it. You can't just take modern Western standards and apply it to people that don't want these standards for themselves. It's just as @Silmarien told you, I think.

Assuming you should just leave people to their own devices and think that whatever nebulous supernatural entity you believe in will solve things is worse than morally abhorrent, it's bankrupt of it, you don't even care about doing good or striving to reach people except on whatever narrow terms you put them on

2PhiloVoid · Jan 17, 2020

muichimotsu said:
Not sure why I have to get it from a scholar when what is being described is both epistemological and metaphysical in nature: one posits that the thing exists independently of the mind, a metaphysical claim, and that we cannot necessarily verify it due to the subjective filter we necessarily use, an epistemological claim

It's primarily epistemological, I'll grant that, but that doesn't mean metaphysics isn't involved implicitly when you're talking about the ontological nature that is implied by something being objective epistemologically speaking

And how do you "know" all of this?

See, this is one difference between you and me. I'm willing to go on record by admitting that my brilliance----what little there really is of it----mainly all comes from standing on the shoulders (and stealing tid-bits of insights) from various intellectual giants who have come before me [to steal a phrase ... ].

So, if and when I start stalking about Subjectivity or Objectivity, or that some nuances of these things are supposedly metaphysical and/or epistemological in nature (whatever the hell all that language can actually connote to us), I'm merely speaking from academic license and not from my own personal void ... although it can and often does include that.

So, basically, you've got near to nothing to share with the rest of us that any of us might really take countenance of; but I can slap down on the table something like say, either, Ralph Baergen's Contemporary Epistemology, or Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript, or Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge.

But again, what do you offer?: like many skeptics and atheists here, in close to nihilistic fashion----- NOTHING! You offer nothing. Nothing that I can either use or trust that there is something therein to 'steal' from for my own epistemological (and existential) gain.

thomas_t · Jan 17, 2020

muichimotsu said:
you don't even care about doing good or striving to reach people except on whatever narrow terms you put them on

I don't think I don't.

May I ask you... did you write a letter to Buddhists? Last time I wrote you this...

Christian Children Forced to Observe Buddhism - Open Doors USA
Buddhist Bhutan Proposes 'Anti-Conversion' Law - Open Doors USA
Sri Lankan Orphanage Targeted by Buddhist Locals - Open Doors USA

Since these are the people adhering to the same sort of philosophy you do.
But now back to your post:

muichimotsu said:
Assuming you should just leave people to their own devices and think that whatever nebulous supernatural entity you believe in will solve things is worse than morally abhorrent, it's bankrupt of it,

I've said I'm against blaming Jesus for not allowing more freedom in instances in which people reject it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Assuming this is neither morally abhorrent nor morally bancrupt.

cvanwey · Jan 17, 2020

thomas_t said:
I think I did adress this all the time. All yes, except #3. I've said soo often in this conversation that, because of equality between the sexes in church... and 1 Timothy stating that women should not have authority over a man... men shouldn't have authority over a woman, either. This is true if the woman wants equality.

In regards to men > women, the Bible makes no provisions stating, 'as long as it's okay with the consenting female.' [You] need to back up this assumption/assertion. Can you do that? Thus far, quoting your singular verse does not do that, and here's why...

Let's play out your counter point, that such a rule only stands 'if the woman agrees'...

"11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

The woman hears this and says, "yeah, well, I want to have this authority anyways because......"

Okay, but if the pronouncement comes from God, that He does not permit a woman to teach, I guess God must change his rule anyways, because the woman does not agree with the pronouncement, followed by God's reason for the pronouncement.

Your provided verse, in Galations, speaks about all humans being 'one' under Christ. They can all go to Heaven. But God still orders men > women.

Do you agree with God's command? I doubt it.

thomas_t said:
I do think I did address the meat of your discussion. My answer was right, I think. Slavery for prisoners of war was my example to show that slavery can be a better option for people wanting to live. Slavery wasn't limited to prisoners of war, indeed. But this example shows that slavery can be reasonable given the situation Israel was in during the Old Covenant. I stay with my opinion: God was okay with slavery if it existed already...

Old Covenant, New Covenant, it's all the same really. Again, Jesus reinforces slavery. Jesus does not abolish slavery. Further, Jesus offers no updates, as to whom to enslave. He only instructs what the slavers/enslaves are to do, when in such a situation.

And your rationale does not follow. Again, murder, theft, trespassing, all existed before God told humans it was wrong, as well as slavery. Meaning, these topics also already existed. To state " I stay with my opinion: God was okay with slavery if it existed already..." does not follow logically.

I stand firm. God is okay with slavery, in practically any unspecific form. And if He is only okay with slavery because it was already in practice before He provided His say-so, then why does He place Commandments against all the other topics, in which were already in existence (like theft, trespassing, etc)?

thomas_t said:
It refers to specific conditions. You can't say that God endorses slavery regardless of the circumstances under which the slavery occurs.

Again, the topic is vague enough to impose in many ways, and vague enough so to where you will likely not find specific verse to distinguish the correct/incorrect use of slavery. This is one of my points. And God appears to have weighed in on it.

thomas_t said:
Jesus did not abolish slavery within the Roman Empire, here we agree. Instead, he told Chirstian slaves to be obedient. I have said why. This was in an attempt to direct the attention of his followers to the kingdom of God instead of losing time in trouble.

You are almost there, but not quite. Jesus does not abolish slavery, period. Which means He is either okay with it in general, or maybe likes it in general; as He issues little specifics.

thomas_t · Jan 17, 2020

cvanwey said:
In regards to men > women, the Bible makes no provisions stating, 'as long as it's okay with the consenting female.' [You] need to back up this assumption/assertion. Can you do that?

I did that: Galatians 3:28. Please remember.

cvanwey said:
Thus far, quoting your singular verse does not do that,

Ah, you did remember my verse! :wave:

. I think it does do that. Your argument does not cut it, in my opinion. Here is why:

cvanwey said:
Okay, but if the pronouncement comes from God, that He does not permit a woman to teach, I guess God must change his rule anyways, because the woman does not agree with the pronouncement, followed by God's reason for the pronouncement.

... may I ask who "the woman" in your post is?
@Silmarien says, it's just Paul speaking personally, here, since it says "I [Paul] can not permit that...".
Nevertheless, I have another way to even out the advantage for men in that, according to that verse, a woman should not teach: Let's assume a feminist woman would attend my church.. and let's further assume I am the church elder in charge of coming to an agreement with the feminist. I would 1. offer her a service equivalent to teaching. Say preaching. Or a prophetical ministry, provided she is a prophet.
In case she insists and must teach inasmuch as her male counterparts teach... then 2) I would propose to ban all teaching from my church. Together with women at church we would elaborate a list of good teaching sermons available online. Church on Sunday would consist of praise, preaching, and lunch afterwards, only. No teaching.

cvanwey said:
You are almost there, but not quite. Jesus does not abolish slavery, period. Which means He is either okay with it in general, or maybe likes it in general; as He issues little specifics.

He addressed slavery in the context of a specific situation Israel was in. "and whoever would be first among you must be your slave," Matthew 20:27. This, for example, was to explain something. You could add "your slave as you know it from your environment + in the circumstances you live in." He wanted to be understood. They understood "slave", so he used that word. Nothing more nothing less.
Jesus didn't abolish it. However, slavery is a political issue. In contrast, He was there to save the lost sheep of Israel. Personally. This was his mission.

cvanwey said:
And if He is only okay with slavery because it was already in practice before He provided His say-so, then why does He place Commandments against all the other topics, in which were already in existence (like theft, trespassing, etc)?

Good question.
Let me explain it to you from my standpoint. If you don't steal... nothing happens. If you don't trespass... nothing happens.
If you don't enslave prisoners of war, you have to pay for the prison to be built. The clothing of the war prisoners. The heating. The water. The food. The staff of the prison...
Israel didn't have all that shortly after they escaped the desert.

So I stay with my opinion: God was ok with it under the specific circumstances given.

Jesus has a good verse for people in trouble: encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, 1 Thessalonians 5:14. Maybe this applied to the slaves. But even for slaves: salvation is priority No. 1. Then the saved person should care for the church first and think about the rest last. And again: within the kingdom of God - the most important thing for all Christians - there are no slaves.

Thomas

cvanwey · Jan 17, 2020

thomas_t said:
... may I ask who "the woman" in your post is?

Could be someone from 'the church'.

thomas_t said:
@Silmarien says, it's just Paul speaking personally, here, since it says "I [Paul] can not permit that...".

The author states he is speaking for God in the same Chapter:

"3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

thomas_t said:
Nevertheless, I have another way to even out the advantage for men in that, according to that verse, a woman should not teach: Let's assume a feminist woman would attend my church.. and let's further assume I am the church elder in charge of coming to an agreement with the feminist. I would 1. offer her a service equivalent to teaching. Say preaching. Or a prophetical ministry, provided she is a prophet.
In case she insists and must teach inasmuch as her male counterparts teach... then 2) I would propose to ban all teaching from my church. Together with women at church we would elaborate a list of good teaching sermons available online. Church on Sunday would consist of praise, preaching, and lunch afterwards, only. No teaching.

You would still be following God's direct pronouncement. The woman still would not have authority over the man. You cannot outsmart God, by creating loopholes. And if God see's this loophole, and does not like it, then you are still against God's direct pronouncement.

thomas_t said:
He addressed slavery in the context of a specific situation Israel was in. "and whoever would be first among you must be your slave," Matthew 20:27. This, for example, was to explain something. You could add "your slave as you know it from your environment + in the circumstances you live in." He wanted to be understood. They understood "slave", so he used that word. Nothing more nothing less.

Sure. And I could use the term, 'I am a slave to my craft'. 'I am a slave to sin'. 'They worked me like a slave.' Etc...

I'm speaking about the direct slavery references, as it pertains to a slave master owning a slave as his property; and as it states in the Bible.

Care to address all the verses I have already provided? Because you have not attempted so, as of yet. I can furnish them again, in case you've forgotten?

thomas_t said:
Jesus didn't abolish it. However, slavery is a political issue. In contrast, He was there to save the lost sheep of Israel. Personally. This was his mission.

You are again, almost there. Let's again review the facts, as they are laid forth within the Bible. You can take a slave for life. You can beat this slave, just short of death, for life. This slave is considered property. Jesus comes along, does not later abolish any of these prior pronouncements, and only reinforces slavery in general. God's mission, apparently, is to allow virtually any type of slavery, forever.

Again, I could provide verses, but it seems clear you do not want to address them.

thomas_t said:
Good question.
Let me explain it to you from my standpoint. If you don't steal... nothing happens. If you don't trespass... nothing happens.
If you don't enslave prisoners of war, you have to pay for the prison to be built. The clothing of the war prisoners. The heating. The water. The food. The staff of the prison...
Israel didn't have all that shortly after they escaped the desert.

Your analogies do not match

You only added a qualifier to slavery. Should be

"If you don't steal... nothing happens. If you don't trespass... nothing happens. If you do not take slaves, nothing happens."

If you are going to add a qualifier for slavery, you can do so for theft and trespassing as well.

(i.e.)

I committed theft, by stealing a key, to release an unwarranted prisoner. I committed the act of trespassing, to save a man from a burning building.

So again, God could have stated, thou shalt not own human slaves as property. The fundamental rule could be in place, like it is for theft and trespassing - (prior to exceptions and caveats). But it's not. Which means God is fundamentally okay with slavery in general apparently.

thomas_t said:
So I stay with my opinion: God was ok with it under the specific circumstances given.

Then you are Biblically incorrect. See all verses pertaining to slavery. And please also reference above.

thomas_t said:
Jesus has a good verse for people in trouble: encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, 1 Thessalonians 5:14. Maybe this applied to the slaves.

Rather than making a complete 'stretch', and hoping this verse saves you, how about instead reference any of the number of verses I have directed you towards? I can furnish them again for you, if you've forgotten. Why won't you address them? You instead want to address other verses.

thomas_t said:
But even for slaves: salvation is priority No. 1. Then the saved person should care for the church first and think about the rest last. And again: within the kingdom of God - the most important thing for all Christians - there are no slaves.

And like I stated prior... It's like a slave owner telling you, as he's beating you senseless, "never mind that I own you and I am beating you. God sees us all as equals, and some day, you will understand. So please remember to continue worshiping God, while I treat you like property"

thomas_t · Jan 18, 2020

cvanwey said:
And like I stated prior...

and like I stated prior

... could be his church elder he is talking to. Or one of the elders standing right before Jesus's throne in revelations any time soon. "Some day you will understand" is not the way you talk to church elders.

cvanwey said:
Rather than making a complete 'stretch', and hoping this verse saves you, how about instead reference any of the number of verses I have directed you towards? I can furnish them again for you, if you've forgotten. Why won't you address them? You instead want to address other verses.

well, I did address your verses using the comparison: dead prisoner of war of ancient Israel < living slave. As an example to show that slavery made sense in many instances.

cvanwey said:
You only added a qualifier to slavery. Should be "If you don't steal... nothing happens. If you don't trespass... nothing happens. If you do not take slaves, nothing happens."[...]
So again, God could have stated, thou shalt not own human slaves as property. The fundamental rule could be in place, like it is for theft and trespassing - (prior to exceptions and caveats). But it's not. Which means God is fundamentally okay with slavery in general apparently.

Here we don't agree. The key part of your quote is not true, I think (the red part). My theory: in the instances in which they took slaves... the alternative would have been worse. I mean the instances sanctioned by God. I'm not talking about the passages in which God criticises their pracitces concerning slavery.
In contrary, there is no such thing as a good theft in the Bible. That's why it is forbidden. So my analogy did work, I think.

cvanwey said:
I committed the act of trespassing, to save a man from a burning building.

this is allowed, though.

cvanwey said:
You cannot outsmart God, by creating loopholes.

didn't do that. I said, if a feminist wants to teach at church the same way men teach and can't be satisfied with another job at church that is equally important... and if I am the church elder... nobody will teach at that church. That's not a loophole. Even if the feminist would not be satisfied - even with her newly won equality in this regard - this would be my ruling as a church elder. At the church I attend, I'm not an elder, just for your information.

EDITED

cvanwey · Jan 19, 2020

thomas_t said:
and like I stated prior ... could be his church elder he is talking to. Or one of the elders standing right before Jesus's throne in revelations any time soon. "Some day you will understand" is not the way you talk to church elders.

The comment you've quoted, was for the woman whom is told, by the elder, she 'must be quiet', and is 'not allowed to have authority over men'

thomas_t said:
well, I did address your verses using the comparison: dead prisoner of war of ancient Israel < living slave. As an example to show that slavery made sense in many instances.

Sure, but again, God does not offer [the] circumstances for slavery. This is the [huge] part you are avoiding. Further, you state 'many' instances, but essentially only bring up the topic of POWs. And further still, the topic of slavery is quite vague. All we know from 'God' is that He seems to be okay with slavery.

Please think about the concept "veil of ignorance". Are you familiar with it?

thomas_t said:
Here we don't agree. The key part of your quote is not true, I think (the red part). My theory: in the instances in which they took slaves... the alternative would have been worse. I mean the instances sanctioned by God.

You are seriously mistaken. The Bible does not define what is not 'sanctioned by God'. Sure, you can cite slavery > death for POWs. But the Bible does not state what kind of slavery is [not] allowed. The topic is vague, to an extent. But what the Bible does state about this topic, tells that slave owners can beat their slaves, and treat them like property.

Seems slavery, in general, is 'sanctioned by God.'

thomas_t said:
I'm not talking about the passages in which God criticises their pracitces concerning slavery.

Again, God tells slave owners that their slaves are property, and can be beaten for life. Jesus never rebukes these pronouncements, and only reinforces slavery practices in general. Of course you would not want to talk about this aspect

thomas_t said:
In contrary, there is no such thing as a good theft in the Bible. That's why it is forbidden. So my analogy did work, I think.

No, you failed. Here's why:

You offered a qualifier for slavery. But offered no qualifiers for the others. Please see my reponse again.

Moving forward... Let's first try to define 'theft'.

Assuming an agreeable definition is: 'In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.'

Let's also observe that a slave, under the Bible, is considered property. Let's also acknowledge such property can be beaten, just short of death.

Now, you see a slave owner beating their slave every day, just short of death. You see this day in and day out, day after day, being beaten. One day, you decide to take/steal this slave from their owner, and your intent is to keep this slave from their owner for the rest of their life. The slave owner asks you if you know anything about his missing 'property'. You say 'no'.

Is this okay? Meaning, does God agree with you and your chosen actions?

Goes right back to the Euthyphro

Is anything God commands considered 'good', because it is God whom commands it? Or, does God do something, because it [is] 'good'?

Whether you like it or not, your every response is flip-flopping and zig-zagging right through both of these conclusions, over and over again

thomas_t · Jan 20, 2020

cvanwey said:
Is this okay? Meaning, does God agree with you and your chosen actions?

There are other ways of helping to solve the dilemma between the slave owner and his slave in the Bible... than to steal. Go to the owner, talk to him personally. Stealing, however, can't be the answer.

cvanwey said:
The Bible does not define what is not 'sanctioned by God'.[...]
But the Bible does not state what kind of slavery is [not] allowed.

I think it does in many instances. One example: when Joseph was sold by his brothers as a slave... Ruben, the oldest brother, couldn't tell their father in Genesis 37:30. The father would have been outraged, I guess. The brothers later invented a lie to cover up what they did. If they would have acted right, this wouldn't have been necessary, I think. There was nobody to "steal" Joseph away from the Ishmaelites after the brothers had sold him to them.
Since Ruben could not talk about this... it wasn't "sanctioned by God" either, in my opinion. If it would have been, Ruben would have found a way to do it.
So I conclude there are cases in which slavery is not "sanctioned by God", contrary to what you say.

cvanwey said:
This is the [huge] part you are avoiding.[...]
Of course you would not want to talk about this aspect

We are on page 12 now. Much of the debate was right me talking to you about this subject. Don't tell me I have problems with this topic now. I don't. My theory in this regard:

thomas_t said:
in the instances in which they took slaves... the alternative would have been worse.

I don't see any reason to think my theory has failed.
---
Women, according to 1 Timothy, should not have authority over a man (singular). If a woman wants equality according to Galatians 3:28, I think there shouldn't be male authority over her either. Note that there are female church elders in the Bible - take Deborah, for instance.

cvanwey · Jan 20, 2020

thomas_t said:
There are other ways of helping to solve the dilemma between the slave owner and his slave in the Bible... than to steal. Go to the owner, talk to him personally. Stealing, however, can't be the answer.

The fact that you agree with me, that 'something' needs to be done, is very telling @thomas_t

The owner tells you to 'get off his property'. The owner tells you, 'I can do whatever I want with my property.' The place, in which you live, is also under Biblical law. (i.e.) All the verses I listed, in which you have yet to acknowledge.

Do you set idly by, and watch your neighbor beat their slave daily? And if you do, does it sadden you? And if it saddens you, why does it not sadden God? Because if it saddened God, God would not sanction such actions - (sanctioned beating). Would He?

thomas_t said:
I think it does in many instances. One example: when Joseph was sold by his brothers as a slave... Ruben, the oldest brother, couldn't tell their father in Genesis 37:30. The father would have been outraged, I guess. The brothers later invented a lie to cover up what they did. If they would have acted right, this wouldn't have been necessary, I think. There was nobody to "steal" Joseph away from the Ishmaelites after the brothers had sold him to them.

This is a dollar short, and a day late. I have repeatedly offered Biblical verse, for which you have continued to avoid. Once you address my verses, offered many times now, I will start to address more of yours (i.e.) God initially sanctions it, Jesus later comes along to fulfill His promises, and yet, never rebukes slavery. Slavery, in general, stands while all humans are on earth.

"20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

"45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

"Slaves and Masters 5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;6not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.7Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women,8knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free."

"1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. 2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. False Teaching and True Riches Teach and urge these duties."

"18 Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh."

etc.............

thomas_t said:
We are on page 12 now. Much of the debate was right me talking to you about this subject. Don't tell me I have problems with this topic now. I don't. My theory in this regard:
I don't see any reason to think my theory has failed.

I appreciate that you are responding. But you are avoiding my main bullet points below.

- God sanctions beating, just short of death. (Exodus 21:20-21)
- God sanctions the owning of humans as property for life. (Leviticus 25:45-46)
- Jesus continues to sanction the general topic of slavery, and offers no special circumstances for what types of individuals can or cannot be enslaved. (Many verses in the NT)

This means God is okay with slavery, not telling humans which humans are deemed as slaves, (except maybe Jews), and God also tells humans slaves can be beaten, just short of death. All of this is in the Book you are defending. Thus, I now ask you, yet again, do you agree with God on these conclusions?

I have a hunch you don't. Which leads me back to your response provided many posts back. You stated Jesus is perfect. You see the conflict?

thomas_t said:
Women, according to 1 Timothy, should not have authority over a man (singular). If a woman wants equality according to Galatians 3:28, I think there shouldn't be male authority over her either. Note that there are female church elders in the Bible - take Deborah, for instance.

Then you disagree with Paul, whom claims he is speaking for God. Again, in the same Chapter, 'Paul" states: "3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

thomas_t said:
Note that there are female church elders in the Bible - take Deborah, for instance

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. She was from the OT. I trust you understand some OT stuff is no longer binding under the New Covenant?

thomas_t · Jan 21, 2020

cvanwey said:
Do you set idly by, and watch your neighbor beat their slave daily?And if you do, does it sadden you?

So what would have been the alternative? Another beggar in the street? There were throngs of beggars living in the streets at Jesus's times.
Anyways, I'm asking myself if my neighbor shouldn't have a slave 2000 years ago, and my other neighbor can't either according to you ... is this a revolution you want for the Roman Empire? It seems to me it is this what you want Jesus to have done - instead of promoting his kingdom of God, that doesn't include slavery.

If my neighbor can't have a slave 3000 years ago, and no other Israeli citizen can't either - who should have paid for the (hypothetical) prisons made for all these prisoners of war of whom there was an abundance of?
There were no prisons for them as there was no money for that... Given that fact, what would you do with thousands and thousands of prisoners of war?

I didn't avoid your passages. I answered them by giving the example of a living slave who is better off than a dying prisoner of war, for instance. This may be my answer to your bullet points as well. And to your quote here:

cvanwey said:
Thus, I now ask you, yet again, do you agree with God on these conclusions?

---
Jesus is perfect, there is no conflict, as I see it.
---

I don't think I disagree with Paul.

cvanwey said:
Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. She was from the OT. I trust you understand some OT stuff is no longer binding under the New Covenant?

Nice that you're always in best humor thoughout this debate. I see you smiling always. There was Lydia in the New Testament. Being a business woman, she was also a spiritual leader as she led her house servants into baptism in Acts 16:14.

EDITED

Tinker Grey · Jan 21, 2020

thomas_t said:
So what would have been the alternative? Another beggar in the street? There were throngs of beggars living in the streets at Jesus's times.

Lookie there, thomas_t has solved the homeless problem. We just enslave them. That's clearly better than another beggar in the street!

Even if you can't think of another solution, surely your omniscient god could have. Surely that god could have instructed a people on how to build a society without slavery.

muichimotsu · Jan 21, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
And how do you "know" all of this?

See, this is one difference between you and me. I'm willing to go on record by admitting that my brilliance----what little there really is of it----mainly all comes from standing on the shoulders (and stealing tid-bits of insights) from various intellectual giants who have come before me [to steal a phrase ... ].

So, if and when I start stalking about Subjectivity or Objectivity, or that some nuances of these things are supposedly metaphysical and/or epistemological in nature (whatever the hell all that language can actually connote to us), I'm merely speaking from academic license and not from my own personal void ... although it can and often does include that.

So, basically, you've got near to nothing to share with the rest of us that any of us might really take countenance of; but I can slap down on the table something like say, either, Ralph Baergen's Contemporary Epistemology, or Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript, or Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge.

But again, what do you offer?: like many skeptics and atheists here, in close to nihilistic fashion----- NOTHING! You offer nothing. Nothing that I can either use or trust that there is something therein to 'steal' from for my own epistemological (and existential) gain.

You think I haven't read any of them? I haven't looked much into the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, but it's not as if I have to reference big name philosophers to glean a comprehensive or at least knowledged understanding of epistemology

If you're just going to appeal to authority as if that's the only way we can acquire knowledge in any reasonable sense that's reliable, then that's a more fundamental problem than how you justify your knowledge claims, because you care more about the source of it rather than the cogency and merit of the claims themselves

2PhiloVoid · Jan 21, 2020

muichimotsu said:
You think I haven't read any of them? I haven't looked much into the Concluding Unscientific Postscript, but it's not as if I have to reference big name philosophers to glean a comprehensive or at least knowledged understanding of epistemology

If you're just going to appeal to authority as if that's the only way we can acquire knowledge in any reasonable sense that's reliable, then that's a more fundamental problem than how you justify your knowledge claims, because you care more about the source of it rather than the cogency and merit of the claims themselves

I think you're just reading into the existential situation, that situation being simply this: I'm of the mind to only hint with folks about the epistemic issues that are relevant rather than get into an extended explication of them. Why? Because not only is my time limited, but as one who is educated in Education, I realize that the motivations for actual learning that other people have are also limited. And I'm not going to waste my time on those who have a hidden disinclination or have a Vendetta against Christianity. So this means, I'm NOT going to lay out various arguments on the table until such a time comes that I feel another person is truly interested in the Journey of Faith ...

Besides, why should I waste my time Defending the Christian Faith when there's plenty of other Christians who are fully capable of doing all of that kind of thing. No, I'm more interested in tearing down the opposing ideas against God that are often called "knowledge." I'm just being honest here. I don't intend to be 'like' other Christians ...

thomas_t · Jan 21, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
Lookie there, thomas_t has solved the homeless problem. We just enslave them. That's clearly better than another beggar in the street!

I've asked my conversation partner what he thinks would have been the alternative - maybe another homeless, I asked him? Nothing more, nothing less.
Do you think it makes sense to turn your argument against yourself (I permit myself to imitate your quote here, if you allow): "Lookie there, Tinker has solved the slavery problem. We just make them all homeless. That's clearly better than another slave"? Is that the solution that you offer? Just swapping the problems?
... oh wait you took another stance

Tinker Grey said:
Even if you can't think of another solution, surely your omniscient god could have. Surely that god could have instructed a people on how to build a society without slavery.

Surely. But let's see how Israel reacted when they escaped slavery: Exodus 14:12. They weren't enthusiastic about their new fate.
Thomas

Tinker Grey · Jan 21, 2020

thomas_t said:
Is that the solution that you offer? Just swapping the problems?

Why not? That's how I read your post.

We have, by and large, eliminated slavery. We have industry and jobs. Are you suggesting that your god couldn't do at least this well?

No slavery isn't good. No homelessness isn't good. But I'd rather be homeless than a slave.

Halbhh · Jan 21, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
We have, by and large, eliminated slavery.

Why not check on your notions? Anyone can check on their assumptions so easily now.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...s-may-be-living-in-modern-slavery-group-warns

Don't stay in the dark on that.

Tinker Grey · Jan 21, 2020

Halbhh said:
Why not check on your notions? Anyone can check on their assumptions so easily now.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...s-may-be-living-in-modern-slavery-group-warns

Don't stay in the dark.

I'm quite aware that slavery exists. Hence, "by-and-large." Also, the point is that slavery is not a necessary condition to humanity AND your god could have done something to educate Israel on how to run a society without it. Imagine the light on a hill that would have been.

Instead, Exodus/Pentateuch reads like fallible, non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, maybe even non-benevolent, beings had their hands in writing it.

Halbhh · Jan 21, 2020

Tinker Grey said:
Why not? That's how I read your post.

We have, by and large, eliminated slavery. We have industry and jobs. Are you suggesting that your god couldn't do at least this well?

No slavery isn't good. No homelessness isn't good. But I'd rather be homeless than a slave.

Also, of course it's easier to be homeless in many places in the U.S. than in some other nations. We have a lot of organizations working to aid the homeless.

Why a Christian Approach to Fighting Homelessness Pays Off

But imagine a different time and place.

You'd hope that God would make rules to help those people right?

Right?

Don't you think?

Tinker Grey said:
AND your god could have done something to educate Israel on how to run a society without it.

You do think so!

Good.
Let's see..... The first main problem is how to change conditions so that fewer people will be sold into slavery or indentured servitude.

Yes? Don't you think?

Deuteronomy 26:12 When you have finished laying aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you are to give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat and be filled within your gates.

cvanwey · Jan 21, 2020

thomas_t said:
So what would have been the alternative? Another beggar in the street? There were throngs of beggars living in the streets at Jesus's times.
Anyways, I'm asking myself if my neighbor shouldn't have a slave 2000 years ago, and my other neighbor can't either according to you ... is this a revolution you want for the Roman Empire? It seems to me it is this what you want Jesus to have done - instead of promoting his kingdom of God, that doesn't include slavery.

Who said we were talking about 2,000 years ago? I stated you live in an area where slavery is legal, under the Bible. Again, the Bible does not speak about, 'in that time,' regarding slavery. Furthermore, we have many homeless people today. Some might even suggest calling this problem an epidemic. Should we institute slavery today for the homeless?

At this point, I feel you are deliberately avoiding key points.

It's getting to the point where I will just keep repeating them, until you acknowledge.

- Slaves can be beaten just short of death, for life. This law has not been rebuked By Jesus. Do you agree with God's allowance?

- Slaves are considered property, for life. This law has not been rebuked By Jesus. Do you agree with God's allowance?

- Slavery is virtually undefined, regarding whom to enslave. Jesus leaves this 'law' ambiguous. Please acknowledge this 'reality.'

thomas_t said:
Jesus is perfect, there is no conflict, as I see it.

Then going back to the 'Euthyphro', if Jesus is perfect, then condoning the beating of slaves, just short of death, and calling them property for life, and Jesus never rebuking such pronouncements later, must be perfect. Right?

thomas_t said:
I don't think I disagree with Paul.

It's not that you agree/disagree with 'Paul', but instead with God. Paul states all such commands are from God. Goes right back to the Euthyphro dilemma. God commands it, so it HAS to be 'good.' Or, God commands it because it IS 'good.'

You clearly adopt the former, on all accounts in the 'dilemma'. Hence, 'might makes right' apparently.

A Christmas Story

I Spit On Perfection

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Blessings Collector

Well-Known Member

Blessings Collector

Well-Known Member

Blessings Collector

Well-Known Member

Blessings Collector

Well-Known Member

Blessings Collector

Wanderer

I Spit On Perfection

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Blessings Collector

Wanderer

Everything You say is Life to me

Wanderer

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Similar threads