I had to step away for a day there to focus on sociology but I appreciate the sentiment and I also value our friendship over right and wrong. I admit to being a little theatrical in some points and can see where I may have been misinterpreted. I pride myself on bring a good communicator in both relating and understanding so I was a little frustrated that I was not communicating successfully. I probably should just let it go but I want to try and communicate it once more from your point of view if I can: If your stance is that one should not present a point with one's only rationale being because "Jesus told me so": than yes, there is a problem there that reflects poorly on all Christians and I agree with that stance. e.g. you say - traditional interpretations of the sin of Onan are that non-procreative sex is not ok and these interpretations shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I say (I didn't, but for example...) that's ludicrous and Jesus told me that non-procreative sex inside marriage is fine. Well, I am being irrational and would be right to be called to defend that stance with something more in depth. I agree that Jesus was an intelligent, rational, and logical thinker and I suspect if I really had some Jesus insight that there would also be some logic / rationale behind it. I do have some aside reservations along the lines that we believe in a man (fully God and fully man) who died and came back to life which is not inherently logical but we believe it because it strikes a chord inside us. I think people do still receive revelations today but I am a natural skeptic and look for substantiation or some corroboration much as you do although your approach is much more formal. Nothing wrong with that, in fact, it is most assuredly more important than my barstool musings.
On topic: It is interesting that this subject came up as I'm working through a sociology course. I'm still working through the implications that slavery may be / is morally permissible. One reason I'm struggling with it is that I can't help but reflect on how I would explain this to someone (a trick I often use when pondering things). It would be a difficult pill to swallow. One thing that is coming up in my musings right now is the role slavery played in biblical times. There was a lot of warring and fighting and conquering going on so of course there had to be some way to deal with prisoners. Driving them off - leads to the possibility they would come back guerilla style or even more directly. Killing them all - happened on occasion but seems like it would be a difficult act to swallow for anyone with a shred of decency. Plus, it would make more sense to - control and subjugate and use them as labor if possible. Therefore slavery as an institution developed to fill a role in society (what to do with the conquered...). In NT times, as I mentioned before, it also filled a role in how to work off a debt. So, its a normal standard of the time that reflected on the warlike nature of our ancestors and filled a need. I know this hypothesis doesn't address every circumstance that surrounds slavery (see enslavement of Hebrews by Egypt - they were already there as friends but public opinion changed). It is an attempt to see how it developed and why God allowed it to continue. I compare this to American slavery which had Christian proponents on both sides of it and is generally seen as falling because of secular opposition - hard to argue. American slavery though wasn't the result of the mentioned social need. We were not expanding into Africa, Africa presented no danger to us. We went there and kidnapped them to bring them back and work because we could. This now seems to fall outside any social need other than greed for free laborers. The intent behind it seems more inherently evil. Out of my thoughts I was led to wonder why we didn't enslave the Native Americans as that would seem to have met my premise. Actually, we tried but Native Americans proved to not be a good workforce - initially they outnumbered us and we were afraid of tribal reactions, they grew sick and died in proximity to us, and they could easily escape and blend back into their surroundings which they were more famaliar with than we were. So, don't want to write "War and Peace" but that leaves me with where does God fit in? I think He saw that slavery served a purpose during that time period, just like wars and famines serve a purpose (like a forest fire serves a purpose), and endeavored to regulate it. I originally questioned His regulations but on further reflection I believe that the regulations were intended to be benevolent as Bobby asserted and, as we did many of the laws, we perverted and twisted them. I can almost see him during the sermon on the mount saying "if you really understood what it meant to not beat your slaves to death you would see...". I also think Jesus and Paul and others brought it up in the context of relationships of the day. Just as Jesus used agricultiral stories to illustrate points he also brought up masters and slaves as stories people could relate to, while neither approving or opposing. Particularly from Paul and Peter's writings I know there are openly debateable points here. Anyways, from here it gets tricky. Once civilization reached a point where slavery no longer filled an important role its moral issues become more readily apparent and opposition to it surfaced that allowed it to be abolished as a widespread institution. I suspect God did play a role in this but I don't really know. Ok then... thoughts? Problems? thanks... Rob On Aug 25, 9:49 pm, "Robert Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rob, > > Our friendship is more important than my being right or not. Sometimes I > try to step on people's throats in arguments instead of following the > Scripture's guidelines on how we should handle other people with whom we > disagree. Again, I'm sorry. I hope you can forgive me for being > insensitive and intellectually proud. > > Bobby > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Robert Johnson < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rob, > > > I'm sorry that put words in your mouth and ignored your perfectly valid > > points. I had no idea it meant so much to you. In the future, I'll be more > > sensitive, encouraging, and patient. > > > Bobby > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > >> I think you are assuming that my beliefs are irrational and I know you are > >> assuming that I implied my beliefs are unaffected by the opinions of > >> others. I have frequently said that I listen to and respect the opinions > >> of > >> others. At the end of the day though I'm going to prayerfully make up my > >> own mind. Frankly, I've lost track of what we're even talking about here. > >> My relationship with Jesus matters in how I look at scripture. In some > >> cases, where I have not taken the time to learn further, this is all I > >> have. I don't think I'm so different from most people in that. I don't > >> use > >> it as license to justify whatever I want (not to my knowledge anyways). I > >> "passively" called you out for "arbiting" because I felt you dismissed my > >> argument by first putting words in my mouth and then ignoring perfectly > >> valid points as if I never said them. Now who exactly would put much stock > >> in someone's comments that don't seem to reflect what was actually said? I > >> don't have the energy to cut and paste it all out over again but I don't > >> need to because you are putting words into my mouth in this very > >> discussion. Clearly I am not holding a position that it is "not ok for my > >> beliefs to be challenged." I had an unexamined belief on Jesus's view of > >> slavery. You challenged it. I wanted to find out more so I looked up the > >> other side of the argument as a basis for where my beliefs may have > >> developed and asked for assistance in reconciling. I have not ducked this > >> difficult issue in any way. I understand pet peeves as I have my own but I > >> think it's possible you're seeing something here that's not here. Jeez! > >> now > >> I am getting defensive!!! grrr.... > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:28:37 -0500 > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: [crosspointe-discuss] Re: Abortion and Slavery > > >> Dave, > > >> The basic concept of slavery is that a person is the property of another > >> person. The slave owner "uses" the slave much like the owner of a tool or > >> animal uses that tool or animal to do work. In this sense, I see the > >> concept of slavery as having application in colonial America as well as in > >> ancient times. Also, indentured servants would be slaves on this > >> classification. Again, the crucial feature of slavery is that one person > >> is > >> the property of another person, however they got this status and regardless > >> of if the status is permanant. The modern West has stressed fundamental > >> rights, which undermines the possibility of one person being the property > >> of > >> another. I don't see this kind of mindset in the Bible: one of humans > >> having fundamental rights. So at this level the scripture is fine with one > >> person being the property of another, and hence, is fine with > >> slavery. Slavery in the West -- which did include moral wrongdoing within > >> it (esp. rape, murder, and cruelty) -- is of course wrong. But this is > >> seperate from condemning the basic concept of slavery. > > >> Rob, > > >> In your initial post, you mentioned my name twice in ways that had passive > >> suggestions. First, you suggested that I hold no authority as an arbiter > >> of > >> arguments, which is false. Everyone does, so long as they understand the > >> normativity of argumentation and apply it correctly. > > >> You went on to describe your method of subjective interpretation that is > >> isolated from the rational scrutiny of others; and you implied strongly > >> that > >> it is a perfectly correct and good method of interpretation. Thus, since I > >> disagree strongly, I went after your method and tried to offer support that > >> it is anti-Christian, as I think all subjective interpretation isolated > >> from > >> the rational scrutiny of others is. Yes, if I'm right, you are on the > >> wrong > >> side of epistemic normativity. But at times, we are all on the wrong side > >> of > >> it. This is why we need the community to hold us in check. > > >> The second time you mentioned me: you had just offered a rationale for a > >> position that would undercut my position on slavery. Then it appears that > >> you acknowledge that the rationale probably doesn't hold under rational > >> scrutiny, and tell me not to go after your rationale (fitting with your > >> initial suggestion that it's okay to hold a subjective interpretation or > >> view isolated from the rational scrutiny of others). So it really looks > >> like you hold (or held) a position like this: "I can hold any position I > >> like, so long as it reflects my current beliefs and as long as it seems > >> that > >> Jesus is fine with my holding it. It is not okay for people to challenge my > >> personal beliefs. My personal beliefs are between Jesus and me." I went > >> after you and your position because it is my pet peeve. This kind > >> of antirational isolation leads people to think that Christianity > >> is subjective and non-rational, when our roots stem from Jesus and Paul, > >> who > >> were as objective and rational as you can get. Jesus gave massive evidence > >> for his Messiahship and reasoned frequently with people (from the time he > >> was a kid until after he rose from the dead). Paul argued from the > >> scripture and from his experience for everything he asserted. He even > >> rationally defended he apostleship. He didn't defend it on subjective, > >> non-rational grounds. Rather, he gave evidence for his apostleship and > >> rested it on reason. > > >> The subjective non-rational method is also at odds with Jesus' and the > >> Apostles' teachings concerning discipleship and false teaching. The > >> apostles specifically told us not to listen to teachings that were contrary > >> to theirs. But they definitely told us to listen to teachings that were > >> expositions of theirs. That is why I was alarmed when you shrugged off > >> what > >> I said in the last thread. It's not as if you explained why my positions > >> on > >> these topics are not correct. You just shrugged off what I had said like a > >> kid who shrugs of his parents' or principal's authority by saying, "I don't > >> accept your authority and there's nothing you can do about it." In > >> a sense, I could care less if you accept my "authority," but in another > >> sense I do -- for I have a calling and a vocation to be a Christian > >> philosopher. And as a Christian believer, I have the authority to "preach > >> the Word; to be prepared in season and out of season; to *correct*, > >> rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction." You may > >> criticize me for not being patient or sensitive or encouraging, but this is > >> separate from saying I don't have the authority to correct and to rebuke > >> with precision and care. I respect your calling to teach, and I don't > >> accept or reject your teachings by fiat. Instead, I try to engage you on > >> rational grounds if I disagree. It definitely looked like you wanted to > >> reject what I had to say by fiat, so I engaged you with reason and with the > >> ethics of argument, trying to persuade you back into a mindset to where we > >> can discuss things. > > >> With all this said, I still think that it is clear that slavery is not > >> condemned in scripture. Of course, there is an ethics of slavery in the > >> Bible, but again, this fact presupposes that the institution of slavery, > >> per > >> se, is okay. Equally clear and true is that the Bible does not teach > >> against killing, but only murder, which is unjustified killing. For > >> example, the Bible does not speak out against a just war. Rob, those, like > >> you, who see the tension between our culture's position on slavery and > >> God's > >> position on slavery should side with the Bible. There doesn't seem to > >> be grounds for a crisis of conscience about this issue. It just turns out > >> that, according to Judeo-Christian Divine Command Theory, people can be > >> property of other people, and hence, slavery is permitted. And this is the > >> opposite of what our culture typically believes -- partly, I think, because > >> they conjure up morally wrong instances of slavery when they report that > >> slavery is wrong. That, and our culture glorifies freedom, and without > >> argument, assumes that humans are by nature free. This assumption is > >> deeply > >> dubious on several levels: philosophically, theologically, and > >> psychologically. Concerning the conjuring up of negative images of > >> slavery, > >> I definitely think that we are not looking at the institution of slavery as > >> a whole and what it essentially is. > > >> Essentially, slavery means that we are not our own, but are the property > >> of another person. In this sense, Paul is right that we are slaves to > >> Christ and to God. We are not our own; we are His. By analogy, human > >> slaves are not their own, but are the property of their master. Now, just > >> like we are slaves to God, some humans were slaves to earthly masters. And > >> just as God can righteously be our Master, early masters can righteously be > >> masters of slaves. > > >> Indeed, to claim that all instances of slavery is morally wrong is to > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
