I'm not even sure where to start responding first if you look at my
full quote so to speak rather than than just the part you zeroed in
on...
"The argument that Christianity opposes slavery bases its
defense on the form of slavery. In other words biblical slaves were
more like indentured servants or something to that effect. They
became slaves to pay debts, they wanted to be slaves so they would be
taken care of. This argument doesn't hold water when examined so
don't even jump on me Bobby!"
and your response...
"First of all, Rob, I think you're actly wrongly. You're not
offending me,
you're offending reason -- and you're not giving truth its due
respect.
Your posts seem to advocate subjective antirationalism, which I think
is the
cancer of fundamentalism. God willing, this mindset will be uprooted
from
you and others in the conservative Christian community. I, for one,
will
spend my life attacking antirationalism in the Christian community.
It is
my calling and is a function of my vocation."
I'll just add that, actually, I was not disrespecting reason, rather I
was respecting that I did not have time to delineate any obvious
opposition to this statement and was stipulating in advance that I see
the problems with it. I gave one example problem with the statement
even and am aware of others ("There are differentiations between
bondservants and slaves in the bible for one...").
next...
"However, Rob, you feel okay claiming that God is against slavery.
However,
you have absolutely no evidence from scripture that God is against
slavery
-- only abuses of slavery. But you seem committed to that slavery is
wrong,
and instead of correcting your position to that slavery, *per se*, is
morally fine, you insist on "adding it to your list of things you're
going
to ask Jesus" and continue thinking that slavery is wrong. This
stance on
any issue where there is decisive evidence for one position, I think,
is not
okay."
aahh... actually I am in the middle of a bit of a moral crisis
regarding the topic as I thought my post made clear. I would think it
would be obvious that adding slavery to the list of morally acceptable
things it is not something one can / would do by blithely reading a
message board - "oh I see what an idiot I've been, of course slavery
is morally permissible!!!" I have efforted to see if the argument is
really one-sided as you claim it to be is all. I appreciate your
sensitivity and yes, you can read the sarcasm into that. I also
appreciate your dismissing my attempts to reconcile it through prayer
and meditation - i.e. I said I would continue to ponder it not that I
would continue to believe "wrongly". I suppose those are not
acceptable forms of discernment? (sarcasm again included for free).
And yes, there are things I'm not sure about and would like to ask
Jesus about one day. Sorry about my non-enlightenment on some topics.
and...
"I understand Bobby's argument that the personal interpretation line
of thinking is ethically difficult to defense and Mike's assertion
that my personal interpretation is not a trump card over other
interpretations. However, I don't regard Bobby as the arbiter of such
things (sorry Bob...) and my personal wrestlings with Jesus and what
His word means are relevant to me."
"Rob, I'm simply expressing a widespread norm of interpretation. This
norm
is used in Plato scholarship, Biblical scholarship, and elsewhere.
The norm
is this: when an author specifically addresses an issue and it is
clear that
they are not condemning a certain practice, then they don't condemn a
certain practice. For example, Plato was not against homosexuality,
as he
freely and noncondemningly speaks of it in his dialogues. The authors
of
the Torah were not against slavery before Jesus, and Paul wasn't
either
after Jesus. And you believe that the Holy Spirit is the author of
Holy
Scripture. So the Holy Spirit, speaking through the authors of the
Torah
and through Paul, clearly is not against slavery. So what do we
conclude
about Jesus? As far as I know, he doesn't address slavery. So should
we
conclude that he thinks differently than the Torah and Paul (and by
extension, the Holy Spirit)? I don't think so."
Actually that was just some spillover from the previous topic where
the slavery discussion started. I apologize if it confused this
topic. I was just stating; again, that at the end of the day I'll
weigh the factors and make up my own mind which I am pretty sure is
what everyone would do. I have no problems with your Plato, Torah,
Paul Jesus example there. It just doesn't apply to the spirit of the
comments it responds to.
finally...
"And to try to silence those who may try to engage you about the
rationality of your position is against the Christian spirit (see
quotes
above and the Willard article on Jesus the Logician) and against the
spirit
of this board."
I am curious about the my attempts to silence you? I am pretty sure I
solicited assistance in dealing with the topic that I am having
trouble working through myself. Are you still referring to "the don't
jump me Bobby..." perhaps? You seem a little defensive Bobby - is
this the fallacy of "I'm having a bad day"? (ok, I'm sorry that one
was not necessary). As far as the spirit of the board I wasn't aware
that class was in session and I'll put whatever spirit to my comments
I darn well feel like. Which I believe is the spirit of the board...
Ok then... thank you for the points on the slavery argument. I like
them. I would question the benevolency of God's rules in regards to
slavery. I stated earlier that they sound set up to protect the slave
owner but don't sound terribly benevolent for the slave.
Specifically, the rules about if the slave marries while a slave then
the wife is not free when he is but he can choose to become a
permanent slave if he wants. Nice choice there. And also about
beating your slave - if he dies right away the master is in trouble
but if he can linger for a couple days before he dies than no
worries. I mean I guess they may have been intended to be benevolent
but surely God can see how they would be misused.
I would say that as I've thought it through I am tending to agree with
you. I may not like it but I understand God is not looking for my
approval. He's not in a popularity contest He just is. Interestingly
I was reading about societal norms in my sociology class this
afternoon and actually checked back to wonder how maybe God was just
respecting the societal norms of the day regarding slavery. They
don't make sense to us but its their society and who are we to judge.
I suspect God had no opinion on the societal norm of the earth is flat
either. He knew we'd figure it out... ha!
On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, "Robert Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Moreover, we are all subject to our Christian brothers and sisters, who are
> to keep us in check. Morally speaking, this means that if I'm out of line,
> the Christian body can call me to get back into line. The authority basis
> for calling me back into line comes from God, His word, and the Holy
> Spirit. To often, people will claim to have a subjective interpretation of
> scritpure and will reject anyone else's take on it that is contrary to
> theirs. They will automatically call dessenting views "false teaching."
> Indeed, they will say, "Jesus or the Holy Spirit or God communicated this to
> me, and I'm not going to listen to some human." However, this is not
> according to the normative structure of the Bible. Any teaching is subject
> to the rational scrutiny of the larger Christian body. Saying that
> the Bible teaches that slavery is not okay is subject to rational scrutiny.
> Saying that the Bible is not a guide to contemporary morality is subject to
> rational scrutiny. This means that the community of faith has power in
> saying which teachings are acceptable and which ones are not. And it's the
> practice of our community that teachings not coming from defensible
> interpretations of scripture are not okay. This means that if it can be
> shown that a teaching does not come from a rational response to scripture,
> it is rejected and treated as a false teaching (as it pertains to Christian
> doctrine). This isn't me, Bobby Johnson, setting up norms; this is me
> describing norms that are in place.
>
> With respect to slavery, here is my position:
>
> 1. Slavery, per se, is morally permissible. That is, God does not condemn
> the practice of slavery, so long as slaves are treated in a certain,
> benevolent, manner.
> 2. The abolition of slavery is morally permissible. That is, God does not
> condemn the abolition of slavery.
> 3. So, even though slavery is morally permissible, it doesn't follow that
> we have an obligation to own slaves or promote the institution of slavery.
> 4. However, being careful here, it doesn't follow that slavery is wrong or
> morally impermissible.
> 5. Thus, it is okay (maybe even preferable) that the institution of slavery
> is not practiced in our society; but our society disagrees with God in
> holding that the institution itself -- even if slavery is practiced
> benevolently -- is wrong.
>
> I hold that 1-5 are true and reasonable, and are consistent with scripture.
> Of course, I welcome anyone to correct me.
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Robert Johnson <
>
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I meant to say "acting wrongly" where my last post reads "actly
> > wrongly."
>
> > Bob
>
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Robert Johnson <
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> This argument doesn't hold water when examined so
> >>> don't even jump on me Bobby!
>
> >> First of all, Rob, I think you're actly wrongly. You're not offending me,
> >> you're offending reason -- and you're not giving truth its due respect.
> >> Your posts seem to advocate subjective antirationalism, which I think is
> >> the
> >> cancer of fundamentalism. God willing, this mindset will be uprooted from
> >> you and others in the conservative Christian community. I, for one, will
> >> spend my life attacking antirationalism in the Christian community. It is
> >> my calling and is a function of my vocation.
>
> >> Jesus and Paul especially valued the truth and rational argumentation.
> >> Paul reasoned in the synagogues with people who were quite good at debate,
> >> and he argued with philosophers (Acts 17). Why would Paul enter into
> >> rational discussion about the scriptures and philosophy? For example,
>
> >>> Following his usual custom, Paul joined them, and for three sabbaths he
> >>> *entered into discussions with them from the scriptures*, *expounding*and
> >>> *demonstrating* that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead,
> >>> and that "This is the Messiah, Jesus, whom I proclaim to you."
>
> >>> While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he grew exasperated at the
> >>> sight of the city full of idols. So *he debated in the synagogue with
> >>> the Jews and with the worshipers, and daily in the public square with
> >>> whoever happened to be there*. Even some of the Epicurean and Stoic
> >>> philosophers engaged him in discussion. Some asked, "What is this
> >>> scavenger
> >>> trying to say?" Others said, "He sounds like a promoter of foreign
> >>> deities,"
> >>> because he was preaching about 'Jesus' and 'Resurrection.'
>
> >> Also, it turns out, Jesus was a logician:
> >>http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39. Jesus clearly
> >> engaged in rational argumentation. Thus, he valued reason. I am making
> >> this case about Jesus and Paul's use of reason and argument to make a major
> >> point. Rob, regardless of what you think about me, you ought to follow
> >> Jesus and Paul by using reason correctly and obeying the laws of rational
> >> argumentation. To command me not to take your argument out from its roots
> >> is one thing, but to spit in the face of reason is another.
>
> >> As Christians, we are to value truth. And if we value truth, we value
> >> rational inspection. Why? Because passing rational inspection means that
> >> we are in the best position to get to the truth. By contrast, not passing
> >> rational inspection means that we are not in the best position to get to
> >> the
> >> truth. In honor of the truth, we should not offer our opinion on an issue
> >> if we don't think we are in the best position to get the truth.
>
> >> However, Rob, you feel okay claiming that God is against slavery.
> >> However, you have absolutely no evidence from scripture that God is against
> >> slavery -- only abuses of slavery. But you seem committed to that slavery
> >> is wrong, and instead of correcting your position to that slavery, *per
> >> se*, is morally fine, you insist on "adding it to your list of things
> >> you're going to ask Jesus" and continue thinking that slavery is wrong.
> >> This stance on any issue where there is decisive evidence for one position,
> >> I think, is not okay. And to try to silence those who may try to engage
> >> you
> >> about the rationality of your position is against the Christian spirit (see
> >> quotes above and the Willard article on Jesus the Logician) and against the
> >> spirit of this board.
>
> >> Consider this passage from Acts 26:
>
> >>> At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your
> >>> mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane." "I
> >>> am
> >>> not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is
> >>> true
> >>> and reasonable.
>
> >> Why didn't Paul say that Jesus told him such things in private? Why did
> >> he reply by saying, "What I am saying is true and reasonable?"
>
> >> Bobby- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Crosspointe Discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
