Slavery and submission to God: Is it negative?

[EnemyOfReason]

I am personally surprised that many find the phrase "servant of god", "slave of god", or "submission to god" to be negative.

I always fall back on Ignosticism when dealing with this. Unless a person understand what they are submitting to it is impossible to dictate that being a slave to god is bad. For example, the krishnadas(Slaves of Krishna) who are followers of the ISKCON movement which is a Vaishnavite movement in Hinduism are some of the most peaceful and even headed individuals that can be found in most religions.

Jews have names like Obadiah and Muslims have Abdullah which all translate to servant/slave to god. another key issue is that in early Semitic languages or languages in general did not have a word to differ from servant or slave. They are mutually alike essentially. It was more common for the Greeks to have words to differ from slave and servant as noticed in the Bible(the Bible also does not use servant as often as people think in books dictated by Paul).


So before people criticize the title Slave of God I believe it should be established what that deity's demands are. Technically all people are in submission to something without knowledge of it. I like many other people would just like to be aware of who the heck I am serving.

I would encourage anybody to translate the meaning of عبد منطق

 

[elephunky]

I personally see it as negative, but I wouldnt force that on anyone.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am personally surprised that many find the phrase "servant of god", "slave of god", or "submission to god" to be negative.

Because being a servant or a slave is a great thing? Of course it is taken to be negative in liberal cultures where slavery is the epitome of evil.

Unless a person understand what they are submitting to it is impossible to dictate that being a slave to god is bad.

That just isn't true. If one takes independence to be a necessary good, then slavery and servitude can never be good for any reason whatsoever.

I personally find all of the servant and slave nonsense to be morally revolting.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[elephunky]

If one takes independence to be a necessary good, then slavery and servitude can never be good for any reason whatsoever.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Technically all people are in submission to something without knowledge of it.

I'd say that technically, you are mistaken. This view rests on Orwellian word games, such as saying that "Freedom is Slavery".

It is not the case that everyone is in submission to something without distorting what submission really means.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I'd say that technically, you are mistaken. This view rests on Orwellian word games, such as saying that "Freedom is Slavery".

It is not the case that everyone is in submission to something without distorting what submission really means.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are right. Submission is a rather strong word but we nonetheless live to to the desires, or serve something.

My issue is that we habitually do this without knowing what it is. We naturally tend to subject ourselves to something.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are right. Submission is a rather strong word but we nonetheless live to to the desires, or serve something.

Following one's desires (or one's rational judgment) isn't serving anything. That is watering down the meaning of servitude to the point where it only means "valuing something". But that is just a word-game. Submission isn't just valuing something.

Submission means being willing to have someone else determine one's values. It means the willingness to relinquish control of one's life to someone else. This is by no means a requirement of any particular individual.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I personally see it as negative, but I wouldnt force that on anyone.

Lets not jump the gun. No one is forcing anything on anybody here.

Perhaps it is because I am an ex-Muslim which is why I find no evil connotations in this.

When I was a Muslim I found it shocked that people view the word abeed as wrong. Worship or ibadah in Islam literally means slavery.

There has to be a gap of some kind here because I just cannot find anything wrong with it. I almost always pop this question up when discussing religion.

 

[Rationalt]

It is practically negative because it involves a good number of times submitting to criminal war lords and/or delusional people.

 

[Rajni]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I agree that the title 'servant' or 'slave' of God doesn't automatically have to be negative, especially if one does take the time to discover just what god-concept that self-titled slave/servant is following. [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]In the case of Krishna – a concept upon which I (loosely) base my own current view of God – if one reads some of the stories surrounding Him, He's not the relatively puritanical angry-old-man-in-the-sky that seems to get more publicity. In fact, much of the ancient writings about Krishna read like the bible's Song of Solomon – very romantic, Lover-Beloved material – which, I have to say from my own experience, is an incredibly refreshing alternative to the platonic Parent/Child- or Friend/Friend models that seem more prevalent. [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]This could be one reason why Krishna followers are so peaceful (though I've had some negative run-ins online with ISKCONites. Plus even with the religion's ample documentation of God's highly romantic adventures, they still try deny that those adventures are saying what they're saying. I.e., they seem to want God to remain 'friend zoned'. ).[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Now, I'll try to keep following as G-rated as possible. The reason why I specifically brought up the Lover-Beloved relationship with God in relation to the OP is this: [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]t could be viewed in a context similar to that of a couple who incorporates the whole [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Master-Servant[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] thing into their romantic [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]activities with each other[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]. In that context, the slave/servant [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]aspect[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] isn't [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]necessarily [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]the undignified sort [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]that might otherwise be[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] associated with the terms, if it's in the context of an otherwise healthy, [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]loving, mutually-respectful [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] relationship [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]between consenting adults[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]. [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]In that context, the [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]unquestioning[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] submission [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]doesn't seem to be a problem. I say 'seem' because I myself haven't engaged in such activities in my relationships with other humans, and don't plan to. [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]P[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]ersonally, based on my own makeup, God is the only One I could have such a relationship with because I'm convinced He's Love itself and won't take advantage of me as another human being might. [/FONT] So, calling Him 'Master', or saying I'm 'His', etc., doesn't make me feel threatened or taken advantage of the way it might if I were referring to a human partner.

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I'm sorry if the above analogy bothers anyone – being that I'm a bridal-mystic sort myself, that's one of the ways I find the servant/slave-of-God thing could potentially be seen in a more positive sense. I admit it isn't going to be everyone's cup o' tea, though, and that's fine too! [/FONT]

 

[Zoness]

Interesting ideas, chaela.

I admit I am one of those people who cringe when I am told I need to be a "slave of God". However I do understand that contextually it isn't always negative, especially if you have absolute faith in your "master". Now, I don't really have much absolute faith in anything but I understand that works for some people. I think my God or gods would be very hands-off wanting me to experience the universe myself, make mistakes and learn from them to become a better person overall.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I agree that the title 'servant' or 'slave' of God doesn't automatically have to be negative, especially if one does take the time to discover just what god-concept that self-titled slave/servant is following. [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]In the case of Krishna – a concept upon which I (loosely) base my own current view of God – if one reads some of the stories surrounding Him, He's not the relatively puritanical angry-old-man-in-the-sky that seems to get more publicity. In fact, much of the ancient writings about Krishna read like the bible's Song of Solomon – very romantic, Lover-Beloved material – which, I have to say from my own experience, is an incredibly refreshing alternative to the platonic Parent/Child- or Friend/Friend models that seem more prevalent. [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]This could be one reason why Krishna followers are so peaceful (though I've had some negative run-ins online with ISKCONites. Plus even with the religion's ample documentation of God's highly romantic adventures, they still try deny that those adventures are saying what they're saying. I.e., they seem to want God to remain 'friend zoned'. ).[/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Now, I'll try to keep following as G-rated as possible. The reason why I specifically brought up the Lover-Beloved relationship with God in relation to the OP is this: [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]t could be viewed in a context similar to that of a couple who incorporates the whole [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]Master-Servant[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] thing into their romantic [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]activities with each other[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]. In that context, the slave/servant [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]aspect[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] isn't [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]necessarily [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]the undignified sort [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]that might otherwise be[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] associated with the terms, if it's in the context of an otherwise healthy, [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]loving, mutually-respectful [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] relationship [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]between consenting adults[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]. [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]In that context, the [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]unquestioning[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif] submission [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]doesn't seem to be a problem. I say 'seem' because I myself haven't engaged in such activities in my relationships with other humans, and don't plan to. [/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]P[/FONT][FONT=verdana, sans-serif]ersonally, based on my own makeup, God is the only One I could have such a relationship with because I'm convinced He's Love itself and won't take advantage of me as another human being might. [/FONT] So, calling Him 'Master', or saying I'm 'His', etc., doesn't make me feel threatened or taken advantage of the way it might if I were referring to a human partner.

[FONT=verdana, sans-serif]I'm sorry if the above analogy bothers anyone – being that I'm a bridal-mystic sort myself, that's one of the ways I find the servant/slave-of-God thing could potentially be seen in a more positive sense. I admit it isn't going to be everyone's cup o' tea, though, and that's fine too! [/FONT]

You sound like a Deisexual or someone who is erotically attracted to god .

You need to stay out of the temples and get a room girl!

 

[Arthra]

In my view we first have to know God and His Messenger for this day.. You have to have knowledge first ... In the obligatory prayer it indicates:

Thou has created me to know Thee and to worship Thee

Note that knowledge comes first.

After we know Him then we can submit to our knowledge... Our knowledge of God comes is through His Messenger(s).

These sanctified Mirrors, these Day Springs of ancient glory, are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory. They are the Treasuries of Divine knowledge, and the Repositories of celestial wisdom. Through them is transmitted a grace that is infinite, and by them is revealed the Light that can never fade.... These Tabernacles of Holiness, these Primal Mirrors which reflect the light of unfading glory, are but expressions of Him Who is the Invisible of the Invisibles.

~ Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 47


عبد منطق

Your Arabic appears to be "A. Logic"

 

[MehGuy]

You sound like a Deisexual or someone who is erotically attracted to god .

You need to stay out of the temples and get a room girl!

Don't worry, the majority of those type of relationships are largely non-sexual.. Just a different way to emotionally connect with someone.

As a Christian I'd never call my God "master". In fact I had quite a difficult time even worshiping him. I enjoyed the pain and guilt from religion, but tried to keep my distance away from God himself. The thought of submitting to a God makes me sick to my stomach.. There were many times at church where I felt so sick watching everyone worshiping and submitting God that I wanted to run out of the room, lol.

Of course, that's just me.. if it works for you, go ahead with it.. I know how enthralling such experiences can be..

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Don't worry, the majority of those type of relationships are largely non-sexual.. Just a different way to emotionally connect with someone.

As a Christian I'd never call my God "master". In fact I had quite a difficult time even worshiping him. I enjoyed the pain and guilt from religion, but tried to keep my distance away from God himself. The thought of submitting to a God makes me sick to my stomach.. There were many times at church where I felt so sick watching everyone worshiping and submitting God that I wanted to run out of the room, lol.

Of course, that's just me.. if it works for you, go ahead with it.. I know how enthralling such experiences can be..

Again. Perhaps thisi s just because the only religion I became serious in is Islam where the technical honorary title for Allah is Rabb(comes from Rabbi) which is a connotation to the word Baal which literally translates as Lord/Master.

So the whole system is like that of slavery. Maybe this is why I just do not view religion as anything else. I was taught that one is the abeed of dunya or abd of Allah.

I have tried studying other concepts but it fails. I am to ignorant honestly so I just kept the concept that as humans beings we are inclined to obey or unknowingly subject ourselves to something unknowingly or knowingly.
Personally I would like to subject myself to 5 shots of scotch but that is another issue .

I am just gonna live in ignorance about this since I am to lazy. Now if you don;t mind I have an essay to write in support of geocentrism . The book on heliocentrism was just too dang long so I am gonna stick with what I know

 

[decent orange]

If one takes independence to be a necessary good, then slavery and servitude can never be good for any reason whatsoever.

That is misleading. Taking independence to be a necessary good is hypocritical because it is not possible. And men who say they are entirely independent are mistaken about their reality.

No child can survive without first depending on the mother. Everything we have is given to us from outside ourselves.

You are dependent on everything outside of yourself for 100 percent of everything you need to live.

 

[simplegifts]

I am personally surprised that many find the phrase "servant of god", "slave of god", or "submission to god" to be negative.

I always fall back on Ignosticism when dealing with this. Unless a person understand what they are submitting to it is impossible to dictate that being a slave to god is bad. For example, the krishnadas(Slaves of Krishna) who are followers of the ISKCON movement which is a Vaishnavite movement in Hinduism are some of the most peaceful and even headed individuals that can be found in most religions.

Jews have names like Obadiah and Muslims have Abdullah which all translate to servant/slave to god. another key issue is that in early Semitic languages or languages in general did not have a word to differ from servant or slave. They are mutually alike essentially. It was more common for the Greeks to have words to differ from slave and servant as noticed in the Bible(the Bible also does not use servant as often as people think in books dictated by Paul).


So before people criticize the title Slave of God I believe it should be established what that deity's demands are. Technically all people are in submission to something without knowledge of it. I like many other people would just like to be aware of who the heck I am serving.

I would encourage anybody to translate the meaning of عبد منطق

A slave has no choice, it describes a one way relationship. My relationship - God is more of a loving Father - I am trying to be an obedient Child.

 

[Rajni]

Interesting ideas, chaela.

I admit I am one of those people who cringe when I am told I need to be a "slave of God". However I do understand that contextually it isn't always negative, especially if you have absolute faith in your "master". Now, I don't really have much absolute faith in anything but I understand that works for some people. I think my God or gods would be very hands-off wanting me to experience the universe myself, make mistakes and learn from them to become a better person overall.

I agree that having the freedom to experience the universe for oneself, and grow and learn on one's own terms, is crucial. I appreciate that freedom as well, and I think it's due to the fact that the god who I see as Lord/Master is secure enough in Himself to not freak out when I grab my spiritual surf-board and do some paradigm-surfing. Previously, I would fear eternal doom if I strayed from the path, and I think it was partly due to that angry-god-concept inherited from my parents, and later borrowed from the churches I went to. I find it easier to call Him Lord now that I see God as not only great and good, but also gregarious and gorgeous. There's no way I could feel this way towards the god-concept I used to espouse.

You sound like a Deisexual or someone who is erotically attracted to god .
You need to stay out of the temples and get a room girl!

LOL!

'Deisexual'? Is that what it's called? I learn something new every day!
I don't do temples or churches, so they're safe, hehee!

Don't worry, the majority of those type of relationships are largely non-sexual.. Just a different way to emotionally connect with someone.

I will admit it is rather hard to ... er ... consummate such a relationship with an invisible deity, at least in the literal sense enjoyed by happy couples everywhere.

I think it's more a case that romantic relationships between couples on the physical plane can be seen as a metaphor for the sort of relationship one can have with deity on a spiritual plane. The respective relationships aren't acted out in the exact same way literally (that I know of, anyway), but they can carry the same mood and create the same sense of closeness and bonding.

Sorry if this derailed the thread a bit ... I just wanted to put out there another way of viewing the servant/sub-image in the context of a relationship with God that's potentially less depressing.


-

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I agree that having the freedom to experience the universe for oneself, and grow and learn on one's own terms, is crucial. I appreciate that freedom as well, and I think it's due to the fact that the god who I see as Lord/Master is secure enough in Himself to not freak out when I grab my spiritual surf-board and do some paradigm-surfing. Previously, I would fear eternal doom if I strayed from the path, and I think it was partly due to that angry-god-concept inherited from my parents, and later borrowed from the churches I went to. I find it easier to call Him Lord now that I see God as not only great and good, but also gregarious and gorgeous. There's no way I could feel this way towards the god-concept I used to espouse.

I find this Bhava as very weird honestly. Perhaps it is because you are a female but your mood fits with Madhura Bhava which is the relation of god as a Lover and he your Mate while I have Dasya Bhava which is that of Slave and Master.

I still say mine's is superior. I have no basis for it but I will justify it one day.

LOL!

'Deisexual'? Is that what it's called? I learn something new every day!
I don't do temples or churches, so they're safe, hehee!

You have some weird fetishes. I recommend you get help . Should switch to autoerotic asphyxiation perhaps . Far more normal

 

[Masihi]

εγώ δούλο, ιησους χριστος

John in Revelations starts out by saying clearly, he is a slave to the Lord. But what does that entail since submission is not in the Christian vocabulary.

"For whom the son sets free is free indeed." Christians are slaves to righteousness, a righteousness that is from Gd. On accepting Gds grace that is thru Christ, a person is viewed as righteous before Gd. That person repented and accepted Christ, believing in Christs message. That person becomes a slave to righteousness, a continuous (daily) process of repentance that leads to sanctification.

"I became a servant (obtained by repenting to Gd thru the acknowledgment of Christ) of the gospel (which is Christ on earth, crucifixion and resurrection, acknowledging need to repent) by the gift of God's grace given me through the working of his power." - Ephesians 3.7