Slavery and submission to God: Is it negative?

[MehGuy]

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

Funny, I was raised to believe that people naturally wanted to disobey God and were inclined to be lawless and live in extreme freedom, the only way to stop people were with threats/force. Lol.

I'm not sure if it's slavery or not, but when you're faced with a choice of follow and worship me or I'll torture you forever, I'm sure it's pretty close to slavery, lol..

Like I said before, submission can be quite intoxicating.. Whether it be a God, or a significant other or even some ideology.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Funny, I was raised to believe that people naturally wanted to disobey God and were inclined to be lawless and live in extreme freedom, the only way to stop people were with threats/force. Lol.

This IS and ISN'T true at the same time. As humans being we naturally tend to desire freedom and desire to be rebels. We are animals after all and we behave as such, just look at the list of wars we have done in 1 decade . We are like the Bubonic plague multiplied by 400.

But on the other hand we do not instinctively believe in a god. So it is an abrupt assumption.

I'm not sure if it's slavery or not, but when you're faced with a choice of follow and worship me or I'll torture you forever, I'm sure it's pretty close to slavery, lol..

No that is not slavery.......we call this Islam in English.

Like I said before, submission can be quite intoxicating.. Whether it be a God, or a significant other or even some ideology.

Bourbon is intoxicating. Submission is just natural when you get overly attached to something.

Burt Reynolds! I love you!

 

[Masihi]

Funny, I was raised to believe that people naturally wanted to disobey God and were inclined to be lawless and live in extreme freedom, the only way to stop people were with threats/force. Lol.

I'm not sure if it's slavery or not, but when you're faced with a choice of follow and worship me or I'll torture you forever, I'm sure it's pretty close to slavery, lol..

Like I said before, submission can be quite intoxicating.. Whether it be a God, or a significant other or even some ideology.

There is none of that in my post. I find it hard to think there are Christians who worship out of fear of eternal torture. That I find in islam.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

There is none of that in my post. I find it hard to think there are Christians who worship out of fear of eternal torture. That I find in islam.

[youtube]ErR9mghM0xo[/youtube]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Westboro Baptist Church

 

[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]

I forgot to seriously respond to this post . I just could not get over the deisexual thing.

I fully agree with your expressiono f the master/slave type dynamic here.
I can be labelled many thing because I LOVE studying religions and copying from them and especially my obvious fixation on Arab Paganism. BUT no matter what I will always stand on a Deistic footing which copies from Gnostic thought and Ignosticism(look it up).

I will always hold the assertion that God is nothing but the first cause and the only acceptable religion available is logic, reason and obtaining of knowledge. This how Deists think.
So when I say I accept "god" as my master it must be taken into fact that it is a willing submission and is based purely on reason.

The Deity or Master at hand is not the angry Jehovah, or vengeful Allah nor contradicting Jesus. It can simply be summed up int he form of reason and the anthromorphization of reason. Deists almost always give ideological concept deified forms, it is common and I am not different in this regard.

So the submission I hold towards god is the same unwilling submission a scientist would feel when he/she has concluded through evidence a factual theory or principle.

Reason and acceptance of facts are without a doubt an unwilling elements to many when it conflicts with viewpoints. So in essence it is a form of unwilling and willing slavery.

I have essentially morphed Ibadah (Islamic Divine Submission) into a Deistic perspective.

I love knowledge like anybody else does and I love religion, spirituality and the concept of god. The issue is that I am to much of a naturalist, skeptic and rationalist to make absolutes I cannot justify.

 

[Zoness]

There is none of that in my post. I find it hard to think there are Christians who worship out of fear of eternal torture. That I find in islam.

It must be fairly prevalent judging by the number of street preachers in the world threatening people with hell if they don't convert. A lot of Christians don't worship out of fear but threats of hell are more often that not lorded over someone's head in order to force social conformity.

 

[revsola]

It all depends on your perception.As far as I am concerned there is nothing negative about it

 

[EnemyOfReason]

It must be fairly prevalent judging by the number of street preachers in the world threatening people with hell if they don't convert. A lot of Christians don't worship out of fear but threats of hell are more often that not lorded over someone's head in order to force social conformity.

To back up your claim.....

[youtube]3PpF9bU2_jU[/youtube]

[youtube]OkuEHcJoBpk[/youtube]

 

[LoAmmi]

I think there's a difference between willingly being a servant/slave to another and it being forced upon you. If someone wishes of their own free will to submit to G-d, that is their choice and we should not ever say they are unable to do that. If someone says that people who are unwilling to do so need to do so, they are trying to force others into their belief and that is not right.

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Yeah, I eat when I get hungry. Most reasonable people won't try to compare this to slavery.

 

[Rajni]

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.

Yes; in addition to Madhurya bhava, it's also been called bridal-mysticism.

I'm glad it comes across as 'weird'. Compared with the other bhavas, this one's less ... 'churchy', maybe? But that's due to my religious background that I make that connection. A better term escapes me at the moment.

The only bhava I have not understood nor experienced is Vatsalya Bhava, because it seems somewhat backwards to me -- motherly love towards God. It just seems that any parental-type of love would be a Creator's thing, directed towards the created, rather than the other way around (though even then I see a slight difference between being a 'parent' and being a 'creator').

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

It's good that you appreciate your bhava. I'd hate to be stuck with one I didn't care much for, lol!

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

Assuming my goal is to be 'normal' and 'not breathing', that might work.
But no. This isn't a Michael Hutchence thing, it's more along the lines of a Mirabai/Andal/Theresa of Avila thing. If what the latter three had were indeed 'fetishes', sign me up!

-
-

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Yes; in addition to Madhurya bhava, it's also been called bridal-mysticism.

I'm glad it comes across as 'weird'. Compared with the other bhavas, this one's less ... 'churchy', maybe? But that's due to my religious background that I make that connection. A better term escapes me at the moment.

The only bhava I have not understood nor experienced is Vatsalya Bhava, because it seems somewhat backwards to me -- motherly love towards God. It just seems that any parental-type of love would be a Creator's thing, directed towards the created, rather than the other way around (though even then I see a slight difference between being a 'parent' and being a 'creator').

I do not understand motherly love towards god either. Perhaps that is because the mother I have is a poor excuse for a human being .

When I first learned of Vatsalya Bhava I always heard of the relationships between Devaki and Krishna. Sort of like Jesus and Mary

It's good that you appreciate your bhava. I'd hate to be stuck with one I didn't care much for, lol!

I am just sick of people trolling over my bhava . Many non-theists like atheists and agnostics immediately become anti-theists if they can spot something to attack. Sort of weird since I am a non-theist as well.
Saying you are a "slave of god" is just something that takes a lot of water to swallow for some people. Christians say "child of god" and Hindus have "companion/union with god" and many others. I just like taking the most brash and shocking position when it comes to theology.

My avatar name for example was chosen because I viewed it as a giant theological middle finger

Assuming my goal is to be 'normal' and 'not breathing', that might work.
But no. This isn't a Michael Hutchence thing, it's more along the lines of a Mirabai/Andal/Theresa of Avila thing. If what the latter three had were indeed 'fetishes', sign me up!

-
-

Woot woot! I am gonna get my 15 foot brass chain and join ya!

 

[merryheart]

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

abd mintaq ... Slave of reason or logic, isn't it? haha

Submission to God, Sacrifice self to God, Slave to God are all part of what is meant by worship - IMO.

 

[elephunky]

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.

I meant I would not force my view on anyone...

Worship, slave to gods etc goes against my core pretty much.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

I meant I would not force my view on anyone...

Of course not silly . I am not talking about forcing any sort of ideology or religion upon anyone.

Or maybe not

Worship, slave to gods etc goes against my core pretty much.

Doesn't against mine . I have no issue with the concept. I do not believe in a personal god of any sort nor do I accept a vast majority of theistic claims.
I have to personalize god into some sort of form so I picked what felt like an abstract form which was what I acquired during my time as a Muslim. Allah(genderless for of Ilah or Ilaha) along with the concept of impersonal presence and total supremacy over all existence. No will, no command, and no ability to take heed of the pleads of it's creation.

Because of this view point I find it logical to conclude that the concept for the relation of such a god is like that of servitude except unlike a human this particular God?Master has no command except that which can be already down. More like limitations if anything.

My understanding of this comes from a cosmological concept and deistic basis.

I find it weir dhow you like Christians are afraid of this word. If I was to say slave 5 times would it send shudders down your back?
To add to further irony I am biracial(part of which is African) .

 

[EnemyOfReason]

abd mintaq ... Slave of reason or logic, isn't it? haha

Yeppers . Reps to you!

Submission to God, Sacrifice self to God, Slave to God are all part of what is meant by worship - IMO.

I find it odd you have no issue with this. Christians seem to be so fixated on being children of god that the concept of anything else is just 'unfriendly'. It is mentioned in Paul numerous times that Christians are to be like slaves unto their lord but translaters deliberately replace the word with servant despite the fact that Greek unlike Hebrew or Arabic makes a difference between servant and slave. The word duolos is specifically used in the Old Testament numerous times and this cannot be translated as servant nor the even milder word "bond servant" which has no correlation to Greek.
Just plain weird how this makes people gasp and pass out(not literally).

 

[merryheart]

Yeppers . Reps to you!



I find it odd you have no issue with this. Christians seem to be so fixated on being children of god that the concept of anything else is just 'unfriendly'. It is mentioned in Paul numerous times that Christians are to be like slaves unto their lord but translaters deliberately replace the word with servant despite the fact that Greek unlike Hebrew or Arabic makes a difference between servant and slave. The word duolos is specifically used in the Old Testament numerous times and this cannot be translated as servant nor the even milder word "bond servant" which has no correlation to Greek.
Just plain weird how this makes people gasp and pass out(not literally).

My Christianity may be odd

I find the concept entirely consistent with both the old and new testaments, and have no quarrel to pick with your translation - its consistent with conclusions I have reached before. However... God has also reciprocated that service. He hasn't asked anything from us that He didn't do for us first (except for obedience - and that is only because He's got the big view while we can only see what is right in front of us, and can't even necessarily trust that.)

 

[EnemyOfReason]

My Christianity may be odd

Odd religious beliefs means you are just an odd girl most likely . Considering my beliefs I may qualify as insane

I find the concept entirely consistent with both the old and new testaments, and have no quarrel to pick with your translation - its consistent with conclusions I have reached before. However... God has also reciprocated that service. He hasn't asked anything from us that He didn't do for us first (except for obedience - and that is only because He's got the big view while we can only see what is right in front of us, and can't even necessarily trust that.)

I find it consistent with god without religion. You may view god as a being who involves himself in the affairs of mankind while I view it as as a being who just has dominion over it's own creation.
I always think of God in response to the first surat of the Qur'an which says "rabbi al-alaamina" meaning "Lord/Master of the Worlds"
I do not give God anymore involvement after the First Cause. This is where we differ of course as I find submission tot he will of god to be a natural thing by merely existing.
If you believe in an all powerful god then it would only be natural that any action taken in what he has created by his creation is only permitted because of the deity's own will. SO even breathing or blinking is submission to god by default.

This goes back to Islam again and the concept of ibadah. ALL things naturally worship submit and abide by the laws of god by merely existing. If they did not abide by god's will then they would not even exist to begin with

 

[merryheart]

Odd religious beliefs means you are just an odd girl most likely

you wouldnt be the first to say or think that

I find it consistent with god without religion. You may view god as a being who involves himself in the affairs of mankind while I view it as as a being who just has dominion over it's own creation.
I always think of God in response to the first surat of the Qur'an which says "rabbi al-alaamina" meaning "Lord/Master of the Worlds"
I do not give God anymore involvement after the First Cause. This is where we differ of course as I find submission tot he will of god to be a natural thing by merely existing.
If you believe in an all powerful god then it would only be natural that any action taken in what he has created by his creation is only permitted because of the deity's own will. SO even breathing or blinking is submission to god by default.

This goes back to Islam again and the concept of ibadah. ALL things naturally worship submit and abide by the laws of god by merely existing. If they did not abide by god's will then they would not even exist to begin with

God to me is very personal; if not for the personal interaction I have had with God, I would almost certainly be one of these here cynical agnostics, given most of my experiences with people who claim to know Him... however it is only most, and not all. There have been a few shining beacons in my life that have displayed a true knowledge of God as I also know Him.