In the minds of millions of people, God DOES exist
It is you/them that I am engaging with - not God, not the 'non-existent'!
In that case, you and I should be perfectly ok, given that the 'God' in my mind, doesn't advocate slavery at all. As for the other Christians, well I can't speak for the 'God' in ALL their minds, but meh...what that heck...sure I can...I don't think I have met any who really think that their internal 'God' advocates slavery, although sure you might be able to cause them to question what they think.
I don't really think you have much of an interest in what God thinks about slavery, other than as grounds, for building a moral case against the 'God described in scripture', the one that, in your estimation, Christians evidently don't worship.
For that matter, I don't know for a fact that God doesn't exist anyway
I think as you implied, the existence/non-existence of God, is somewhat irrelevant to you, what is relevant, is the minds of the millions of people who think that he does, that you are forced to share a planet with.
All I know for a fact is that God, as described in scripture, transgresses against our collective standard of human morality and, as such, is unworthy of our devotion
1. You don’t need to visit many threads around here to discover that there is no 'collective standard of human morality', in fact there are not really any individual ones.
2. The nearest humans get to such a thing as a 'collective standard' are competing consensuses, that change and adapt over time. - Do you require God to conform to all, or just some of these?
3. God is described to some degree in the bible, but according to the bible, no-one has ever seen Him, apart from the son (Jesus) so they're not really in a position to describe him. The role of the prophets was to speak on his behalf, but it's not like they were possessed, everything they uttered was mediated by their ability to perceive and understand - so subject to limitation. I’ve said already that according to the Book of Hebrews, ‘Jesus himself’ was the closest we get to a ‘description of God’, clearly that is a uniquely Christian perspective.
4. Gods worth is not determined by my valuation, it is self-determined, and it is this self-determined value that God projects on to humans, that according to the bible are his image bearers.
5. The Irony is that it is this unique status applied to humans that gave rise, in the West, to the very concept of ‘Human Rights’ that you accuse the God of the bible of violating.
You are quite literally (or maybe historically/philosophically) biting the hand that feeds you!
What makes you think that an applied value equates to "making more of it than there really is"
Perhaps because value is a relative term, that ceases to exist when the valuer does.
Value is a relative term - if there is no one to consider 'X' valuable then 'X' is of no value!
I agree value is a relative term, within religion the ultimate valuer is God.
What makes you think that an applied value necessarily leads to entropy?
What makes you think that an inherent value doesn't lead to entropy?
I wasn’t thinking about any relationships between value and entropy.
I’m guessing that maybe you thought I was making reference to information theory. - I wasn't
I was just reflecting on the ultimate futility of living and reproducing in a 'dying universe'.
The moral standard, itself, to which I {and most every other human being} adhere to is one born of logic
To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another human being is immoral
{Anything else is, by definition, either moral or, at the very least, morally neutral}
This is perfectly rational
So essentially the 'Golden Rule'? which is logical in the sense that it is mutually beneficial.
You are right to point out that Jesus was not the only person to promote the idea, although not always with as much
equity.
Wikipedia said:
Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE–65 CE), a practitioner of
Stoicism (c. 300 BCE–200 CE) expressed the
Golden Rule in his essay
regarding the treatment of slaves: "Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you."
It was also the well-intentioned (but infinitely more condescending) motivation behind Sir Francis Galton's Eugenics - the Darwinistic, Enlightenment-inspired approach to the betterment of the human race (and reduction of 'needless' suffering) through the 'scientific racism' that ultimately found its most unflinching expression in Auschwitz.
To be fair, this is not the only thing that Sir Francis Galton should be remembered for, he coined the phrase ‘nature versus nurture’, created the field of ‘psychometrics’, invented statistical correlation, and perhaps ironically, invented the Dog Whistle.
It also perfectly rational to experience a "physiological" response of disgust and loathing when a human being consciously and purposefully inflicts needless harm
It is although “physiological” responses of disgust and loathing are not dependent upon an accurate evaluation of intention, or necessity.
What's even more repugnant is when God, Himself, consciously and purposefully inflicts needless harm!
That would typically be called cruelty and I don’t think this accusation is justified.
"Every bit as owned" as an actual slave?
I suspect that a great many people, of all colors, would take great offense at this assertion
And rightly so...
What was I saying about dog whistles? Oh never mind I can’t recall.
YOU are NOT a piece of property!
If you don't think that you are owned, try and avoid a military draft and see how that works out for you.
You may never be able to successfully 'extricate' yourself from the clutches of governments and corporations, but you are certainly free to try
I wouldn't stand a chance, I could go 'off grid' and attempt to leave the country(so long as I am in possession of 'my' (government-owned) passport and am not living in the midst of a pandemic), but I'd have to leave the planet to truly escape - which according to UN Outer Space Treaty 1967, I'd need governmental authorization to do, legally.
Absolutely not true of a 'true slave', what they would need to do, is break some chains and run fast/far enough.
Slave to your "dopamine response"?
In other words, a slave to yourself
Again, isn't it horribly offensive to compare yourself
{as a slave to yourself}
to an actual slave
{i.e. piece of property owned by another person}?
Is it? Are you horribly offended?
If so, am I obliged to restrict my words or thoughts, to ones that might be deemed sufficiently unlikely to cause offence? And if so, then to which authority must I submit, to gain clarification on what words or thoughts, are to be properly deemed offensive?
Or else am I free, to speak as one unshackled, from such psychological ironmongery?
So God regarded captivity to one's human nature as an offense to Himself, but not the captivity of one human being to another
Sorry, but God clearly propagated slavery when He gave explicit instruction upon how one human being should own another human being as a piece of property
Paul describes Sin as a form Slavery, the concept of 'redemption' is one that relates directly to slavery, to 'redeem' someone was to pay the purchase price due to their owner, so that you could then release them from their owners control.
According to the New Testament, God is very much in the business of 'redemption'. Although, Paul describes himself as a 'Slave to Christ' or a 'slave to righteousness'
It's all very abstract and reliant upon an awareness of theological themes, but don't worry all this stuff will be covered in far greater accuracy and detail, in your non-existent ‘Soteriology 101’ module.
Christianity:
A faith that teaches that mankind is inherently wicked and deserving, from birth, of eternal damnation...
Again, ‘Soteriology 101’ will compare and contrast, the above theory of salvation, against competing ones, and you might find yourself arriving at a better, more refined one, or in the very least just be able to trace the philosophical/theosophical ideas and thinkers that had a role in its formation.
Christianity (arguably) teaches that mankind is born into a form of slavery (to sin / Satan) and that the only way to break free of this slavery, is 'redemption' - which (as I have mentioned) is a technical term relating to the purchase of slaves, the price of this 'redemption' is the death of God incarnate, so there is way in which this transaction between God and Satan takes place on the cross. The concept of 'slavery' is right at the heart of Christian theology.
It was
this concept of slavery that was eventually discovered by John Newton the Anglican Cleric and 18th century Abolitionist, Hymn writer (of Amazing Grace)
If anyone understood slavery from a practical perspective it would be this ex-Royal Navy conscript(pressed into service at 18), ex-slave (yes that is correct! – he was enslaved to an African Princess - Princess Peye at 20) and ex-slave ship captain, who said this when describing the moral state that he found himself to be in.
“I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I want to be, I am not what I hope to be in another world; but still I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am”
Nope, I'd say that we live in a less brutal time in spite of Christianity - not because of it!
Unfortunately, that’s not how ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ works.
You could attempt to demonstrate that something other than Christianity, has been more influential in shaping the beneficial aspects of western society, that we have inherited today, but good luck with that.
We, the human race, according to scripture, are saddled with the IMMENSE limitation of fallen natures that compel sin and yet God doesn't hesitate to condemn the sins of murder, stealing, lying, adultery, blasphemy, etc
Is this an interpretation of scripture? or a description of how humans commonly behave?
Why, then, does He make an exception for slavery???
You understandably have an objection to the concept of people being owned by other people, as do I.
But I’m guessing that you don’t have a problem with people owning land, cattle and natural resources.
I’m descended from peasant stock, servitude is in my DNA, I will spend most of my adult life slaving away, hopefully gathering up enough resources to pay for my own cremation.
My ancestors owned no land, cattle or natural resources(this isn't speculation, I've researched this out of interest), they subsisted by working the land, cattle and natural resources of others.
In a feudal society, there are no rules more basic than the rule to seize what you can, by whatever means that you can, from whoever you can.
There is no distinction made between land, cattle, people, and resources. They are all one and the same, and sadly from a practical perspective that is absolutely correct, what life, freedom and liberty does a person with no access to land, cattle and resources have?
In what way do our western capitalist societies diverge from this model?
Answer – They do not!…apart from that the ‘Slaves’ get paid a ‘wage’ to feed, house and clothe themselves, so liberating the ‘Slave-owners’ from having to shoulder these burdens directly.
Do you have better judgement than God?
Yes, you do!
Most every one of us does
Want proof?
Easy...
You would never, ever morally sanction one human being owning another human being as a piece of property
You know better
God does not
I respectfully beg to differ.