Tweet
Obiwan -
Why? I'm not the one trying to equate Paul with Jesus.
Assuming I don't accept Jesus (whatever that means), why is it dishonest to reject Paul as a spokesman for Jesus? Did Jesus condone slavery? If he did, then I reject his religion too.
Does that mean God will condone or endorse acts of evil to keep partially hidden?
So why did it take millennia to outlaw slavery? Do you know how many slaveowners justified their actions? By pointing to a curse God placed on the descendants of Ham! How is it moral to condemn your children for your actions?
You ignored what Paul told slaves and slaveowners.
Did Paul call upon all slaveowners to free their slaves and abolish the institution of slavery? No, he asked someone he knew to free a friend from slavery.
You tell me.
"Son" is not a term of equality, but if he meant "brother", he could have called him brother and not son. It sounds like Paul is referring to his son - who became his son.
Obiwan, you're not explaining why Paul did not call for an end to slavery, period.
He didn't, he just asked for a friend to be freed. And why only Christians? Why not all slaves?
Paul didn't fight to free slaves, he asked that a friend be freed.
He couldn't speak? He did speak, and he told slaves to be good slaves. If that's Christianity, no thanks. Religion is supposed to be about morality, not pragmatism.
Ever hear of the Underground Railroad? Spartacus? Were these slaves who rebelled or ran away behaving as good slaves in the eyes of their owners? But Paul would tell these slaves not to runaway or rebel, but to remain slaves and hope their owners free them.
You're aren't getting this, I don't reject Paul because he didn't die trying to free slaves, I reject him for condoning slavery.
Paul condoned slavery and he did it when he failed to condemn the institution when he advised slaves and their owners on how to behave.
Exactly! And how did Paul "convince" slaveowners to stop the practice? He told them to treat their slaves well and he told their slaves to be good in the eyes of their masters. Why didn't he tell the slaveowners that slavery was evil and that they needed to end the practice?
I believe you quoted Paul and I responded.
MacTBone]David, what about the emotional anguish the friends and family of drug users suffer?[/quote]
Are you suggesting it should be illegal to cause others mental anguish? I used drugs when I was young and caused no emotional anguish to others. Why would I be held accountable for the actions of others?
Many OD's result from the lack of quality control resulting from the illegality of drugs. That means those who ban the drugs share responsibility for this cost. But we all die, why are the funeral costs of some people relevant?
Drugs aren't bad, it's what people do with them that may be good or bad.
Where did you find this power in the Constitution? Oh well, better ban every chemical under the kitchen sink.
Where in the Constitution did you find this "right"?
So can a loaded gun, you want those banned too?
So if slavery was the status quo, those advocating slavery have no need to justify their position? Hmm...strange world in which one group of people don't have to justify their persecution of millions of people, but their victims have to convince them to stop the persecution. If government didn't exist, would you run around forcibly taking money from other people to cage millions more for using pot?
Berzerker,
clearly you have a problem with both Jesus and Paul, not just Paul.
clearly you have a problem with both Jesus and Paul, not just Paul.
It is dishonest to reject Paul as not conforming with Christianity, when you don't accept Jesus.
It makes sense to me that God will not provide everything all at once, and rather progressively reveal himself to man.
This is part of the point of the Mosaic Law, that you teach to the level at which people can understand. If you change their behavior for the better, have you not won part of the victory?
You ignored my points about equality, that Paul taught the equality of all persons, which is anathema to slavery as an institution.
Now we're getting somewhere! So you accept that Paul hates slavery, at least in Philemon, but you attribute this rejection as a favour for a friend.
"I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains."
What does Paul mean when he refers to Onesimus as 'my son?'
What does Paul mean when he refers to Onesimus as 'my son?'
Does he mean a friend, or does he mean a brother in Christ? I think he means the latter.
Onesimus is not just a personal friend of Paul, but he is also a Christian brother, under the pastoral care of Paul.
By extension, Paul should be willing to file a claim for all the Christian brothers who are in chains to their masters, in asking for their freedom from captivity.
Now combine this with Paul's earlier statement. In order for a slave to be freed, he can stay as he is and not improve his lot, or he can become a Christian, and have people to fight for his freedom like Paul.
Paul has no power to demand the release of all the slaves, but he does have the power to help the Christians.
And how else will the slave be freed? Cutting all the chains off the slave?
Having Christians walk around and free the slaves? Paul would prefer to do this, but the constraints of the time bind him to this approach.
It does not prove that Paul condones slavery, Paul was trying to topple slavery from within.
If you take the slaves away from a slaveowner, he will simply get more. If you convince the slaveowner that slavery is wrong, then he will never own another slave, and release the ones he owns.
Granted, this is off-topic but Berzerker initiated the discussion, not me.
MacTBone]David, what about the emotional anguish the friends and family of drug users suffer?[/quote]
Are you suggesting it should be illegal to cause others mental anguish? I used drugs when I was young and caused no emotional anguish to others. Why would I be held accountable for the actions of others?
There's also the cost of funerals if a drug user ODs.
Also, not everyone realizes drugs are bad, mmmkay?
Some people either ignore or don't think about the consequences, and I know you don't agree with it, but the government should keep harmful substances out of the public.
If the government via the FDA can ban and block research into drugs that are harmful, they have the right and obligation to keep harmful substances illegal.
Drugs can harm in more than one way, they can harm your education, your physical ability, your body, and your emotional stability.
People make arguments using legal drugs (like alcohol) and asking how they feel about that but the onus is on the people that want to make a change, not the people who wish to keep the status quo.
Comment