Can A Human Being Truly Be Owned ?

[Franko47]

When I think about it, I'm not sure that it would be completely moral for any being, however "powerful" to claim outright "ownership" of a human being.

 

That being the right to "dispose" of a human in any way it felt like doing.

 

 

It irks me when I hear religious people describe the relationship between God and humans in what is really a "master and slave" context. In fact, it's worse than that. The religious mind grants all sorts of autonomy to this "God", including a blind trust that such an entity is acting in the believer's "best interests". Even when disaster and tragedy strike the believer, or other believers, there is this premise that it's all part of some "master plan" or "big picture", and that even though it's horrible, everything works for "good". Somehow.

 

I think that the very notion of this is not only self-defeating, but dangerous.

 

Anyone have any thoughts on this ? And where does such a God get off in thinking that it can just cause a human to die, for some mysterious "plan" ? Even if true, it's still unethical. Immoral. Evil.

 

In the truly moral sense of it, "God" should not have the right to do any of these things, let alone punish humans in an afterlife; although for now we can treat that as a separate issue.

 

And why not help humankind out more in the here and now ? What's with this passive-aggressive attitude from these "Gods" ? If they want to be worshipped, then show yourselves. If you want humanity to better itself, then give us more than a system of irrational thinking, warped values, and threats. It's like dealing with cosmic amateurs. No, really.

 

To deny a human being it's own autonomy is outrageous. I will be who I am, I will seek truth to the best of my ability, and I will entertain a God if it measures up to my sense of moral philosophy.

 

I can hear the religious believers gasping at this. That in itself is curious. Most believers I know don't like the idea of being "controlled", at least by government or other humans, yet jump at the chance to have their entire being defined by some legend, and a God that they can never truly understand. Most curious.

 

Why must I be reduced to a helpless child, at the mercy of mysterious god-beings, just for the sake of wanting to believe in something greater than myself ? Why must I become worthless in such a process ? That is what religion dictates, every time. Why can't I have value as well as the God ?

 

It's like surrendering your soul to an unknown. Scary. Perhaps that's why I held back a part of myself even when I was a Christian. There seemed something very reckless about handing everything you are over to this controversial and complicated God-being. Perhaps some of you had a similar experience.

 

Comment is invited, it's ok to tangent here since I've tried to cover a lot.

[Shyone]

When I think about it, I'm not sure that it would be completely moral for any being, however "powerful" to claim outright "ownership" of a human being.

 

That being the right to "dispose" of a human in any way it felt like doing.

 

 

It irks me when I hear religious people describe the relationship between God and humans in what is really a "master and slave" context. In fact, it's worse than that. The religious mind grants all sorts of autonomy to this "God", including a blind trust that such an entity is acting in the believer's "best interests". Even when disaster and tragedy strike the believer, or other believers, there is this premise that it's all part of some "master plan" or "big picture", and that even though it's horrible, everything works for "good". Somehow.

 

I think that the very notion of this is not only self-defeating, but dangerous.

 

Anyone have any thoughts on this ? And where does such a God get off in thinking that it can just cause a human to die, for some mysterious "plan" ? Even if true, it's still unethical. Immoral. Evil.

 

Comment is invited, it's ok to tangent here since I've tried to cover a lot.

You are referring to a modern understanding of humanity and our relationship to one another - still changing.

 

In the bronze age, slaves were common, and in essence everyone "belonged" to the king who was not subject to laws but rather held absolute power. god was given the same powers, but to justify such powers existing now requires that we devalue human life. "God made us" as though we were "things" or property.

 

You are trying to apply modern standards to ancient myth.

 

The devaluation of human life is now more of an extension of the idea that life has no meaning other than to get to heaven. Just passing time. And what is a few years compared with eternity?

[ContraBardus]

That's the deal with religion. It's essentially a control mechanism.

To be honest, even in ancient times, I suspect most rulers knew full well it was complete bullshit, or at least had some idea that many parts of it were at least.

It's all about you're worthless, you need God's approval, and must comply to be saved.

It's the entire point of the existence of religion to begin with. Do what you're told, submit to authority, and conditioning to take orders as well as motivation to not rebel against authority figures.

The spiritual stuff, morals, and other trappings are all secondary.

What's most important is that you are 'owned' by the Church, and are in service to it, not 'God' such as it is.

They tell you 'submit to God/Holy Spirit/whatever' but what they mean is obey clergy, consider their counsel above all others, and live for the glory/power/purpose of the church and it's leaders.

Christians and just about any theist would deny it, but that's pretty much what reality boils down too in the end.

You do not really 'belong' to 'God'. You belong to the faith that you believe in that promotes the particular God you pray to.

These organizations are quite good at doing it, and cheerfully get willing members by way of brainwashing.

They always start you off with messages of 'hope', 'peace', and 'eternal life/happiness'. Then once they have you, they start in on the more 'difficult' to accept principals.

All 'churches' do this. There are some idiots who don't know how to make the sale and start off on the wrong end of course, but as a general rule, any faith on the whole starts off with the happy bullshit first.

It's how Christianity works, it's how Islam works, it's how Scientology [as much as I hate to put it in with religion, it's not, it's a pyramid scheme business pretending to be a religion], and any other faith you might think of of any note.

[oddbird1963]

Franko47,

 

I completely agree. Now here is my two cents worth:

 

A human can be "owned" only if he or she allows themselves to be owned.

 

The concept of slavery where another person or being has "title" over a human being regardless of the will of that person is an obscenity.

 

Slavery is an institution of domination and greed. The institution is a way to get cheap labor and withhold human rights that everybody should be enjoying.

 

So the analogy of the "doulos" or slave of Christ in the NT is just as obscene. It just shows that Christianity is based on domination, just like the institution of slavery. No matter what flowery things Christians want to say about their religion or their deity, the last trump card is, and I paraphrase, "Do EXACTLY what I say or you're going to hell!"

 

So that's the love of Jesus, huh? Comply or fry. Not too different from the slave traders and plantation masters.

 

No. Even if a god exists, there is no inherent right it would have to our souls. Many humans tend to yield to power and status and give up their presumptive autonomy to the powerful and the glamorous. We're conditioned to that in some ways. So it's not surprising that many would gleefully yield to their concept of an all-powerful God without question.

 

But there are a few people who, rather than yield their minds and their wills to an unproved, imaginary entity, question and challenge the institutions that have been built around that belief.

 

There are thinkers among Skeptics and atheists who believe that rather than engage in diatribe against organized religion in America (esp. Christianity), they should engage in constructive dialogue and cooperation where possible. That is well and good.

 

But the voices of non-theists , IMHO, should all be raised to assert the autonomy, dignity and power of the human spirit and its potential to bloom and assert itself independently of any professed deity. The more non-theists who make such assertions ("You don't need a god to thrive.") the less likely it will be that religions will get away with enslaving humanity to the imaginary power known as god.

[Franko47]

 

To be honest, even in ancient times, I suspect most rulers knew full well it was complete bullshit, or at least had some idea that many parts of it were at least.

 

 

 

I fully agree. I think it even extends to the Popes throughout the middle ages, clerical authority, and everyone else who had a vested interest in keeping their "temporal" situation going - especially if there were status and materialistic comforts.

 

Even today, I think that there are religious leaders, and especially successful televangelists, who likely deep down have come to the realization that what they represent might be complete bullshit. It wouldn't surprise me. All those gullible followers, sending in their money, thinking that you have special and magical insights into "god", when in fact all you're doing is playing a big game. I notice sometimes how the bullshit gets more and more extravagent, as though at times they are pushing the envelope to see just how much manure the crowd will buy.

[Franko47]

 

 

 

 

But the voices of non-theists , IMHO, should all be raised to assert the autonomy, dignity and power of the human spirit and its potential to bloom and assert itself independently of any professed deity. The more non-theists who make such assertions ("You don't need a god to thrive.") the less likely it will be that religions will get away with enslaving humanity to the imaginary power known as god.

 

 

 

This is one of the major criticisms I have of religion, the fact that it tries to demote if not demoralize the the humanistic element. If I don't have autonomy, even in a universal sense, if I do not own myself, then I have no rights. It matters little how benevolent the "god" may be. There use to be a sense of philosophy within theology that was about Man meeting God "half-way". Now, it seems, more and more, it's about the individual being worth "nothing" without some kind of approval by their God. In some ways, radical Islam and Christianity (fundamentalism) have regressed this concept right back into the middle ages.

[Kerplunk288]

It is ontologically contradictory to say that a person can be owned. Persons, by their very nature, ought to be a law unto themselves, treated always as an end, and never merely a means. That being said, I do think that people can rationally devote themselves to God. Their service, however, is free and of their own volition.

 

A similar sentiment can be found in the Creation account. It would serve you well to juxtapose the Hebrew Creation account to the Babylonian Creation account (The Enuma Elish). In the Babylonian account, man is made from the remnants of the defeated demi-god, Kingu. He is created to serve and wait on gods, as a slave waits on his master. In the Hebrew account, God fashions man for the earth, and breathes his own breath into man, effectively creating man in his own image, rather than out of a second-rate demi-god. Additionally, God gives man dominion and stewardship over the entire earth. If atheists object to the language of the Bible, then I would imagine they would have a field day with Babylonian religious texts.

 

Man is not meant to be a slave. Any religious group which says so is either gravely mistaken, or merely using metaphorical language.

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

It is ontologically contradictory to say that a person can be owned. Persons, by their very nature, ought to be a law unto themselves, treated always as an end, and never merely a means. That being said, I do think that people can rationally devote themselves to God. Their service, however, is free and of their own volition.

 

A similar sentiment can be found in the Creation account. It would serve you well to juxtapose the Hebrew Creation account to the Babylonian Creation account (The Enuma Elish). In the Babylonian account, man is made from the remnants of the defeated demi-god, Kingu. He is created to serve and wait on gods, as a slave waits on his master. In the Hebrew account, God fashions man for the earth, and breathes his own breath into man, effectively creating man in his own image, rather than out of a second-rate demi-god. Additionally, God gives man dominion and stewardship over the entire earth. If atheists object to the language of the Bible, then I would imagine they would have a field day with Babylonian religious texts.

 

Man is not meant to be a slave. Any religious group which says so is either gravely mistaken, or merely using metaphorical language.

 

-Kerplunk

Romans 6:22. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

 

Yeah, big difference between those ancient texts.

[Kerplunk288]

Romans 6:22. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

 

Yeah, big difference between those ancient texts.

 

Come on, really? I am not even a big Scriptural guy, but this is just taken out of context.

 

Slaves do not act of their own will, but rather of the will of their master. If we truly are either slaves of sin and death or of God and righteousness, none of our actions would have any moral weight - good or bad. It would undermine all of Paul's salvific theology if man were truly and mostly explicitly a slave. What difference is it who are master is, if we are still slaves nonetheless? Yet, Paul states that we "offer" ourselves to sin and death. Slaves hardly have this capacity.

 

This passage must be taken metaphorically. Paul himself states a few verses beforehand that he is writing in human terms to illustrate a point.

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

 

A similar sentiment can be found in the Creation account. It would serve you well to juxtapose the Hebrew Creation account to the Babylonian Creation account (The Enuma Elish). In the Babylonian account, man is made from the remnants of the defeated demi-god, Kingu. He is created to serve and wait on gods, as a slave waits on his master. In the Hebrew account, God fashions man for the earth, and breathes his own breath into man, effectively creating man in his own image, rather than out of a second-rate demi-god. Additionally, God gives man dominion and stewardship over the entire earth. If atheists object to the language of the Bible, then I would imagine they would have a field day with Babylonian religious texts.

 

-Kerplunk

I wish to address this part of your post. I think your concept of juxtaposition of religious texts is a good strategy for understanding the development of religion and religious concepts. You might want to examine their Psalms, Proverbs and Lamentations as well.

 

Ahem.

 

Now I wonder if you imagine that a person born in Babylonia (or Sumeria or Akkadia) could actually be a slave created to serve the gods. I suspect that you would say that is impossible because gods don't exist. And you would be right. If one mythology seems better than another mythology, that does not make it "true."

 

But you do acknowledge that people were held against their will and forced to serve humans, no? There are texts in all ancient civilizations acknowledging the institution of slavery, and the Hebrews were no exception. Where do you think they got the idea?

[Shyone]

Romans 6:22. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

 

Yeah, big difference between those ancient texts.

 

Come on, really? I am not even a big Scriptural guy, but this is just taken out of context.

 

Slaves do not act of their own will, but rather of the will of their master. If we truly are either slaves of sin and death or of God and righteousness, none of our actions would have any moral weight - good or bad. It would undermine all of Paul's salvific theology if man were truly and mostly explicitly a slave. What difference is it who are master is, if we are still slaves nonetheless? Yet, Paul states that we "offer" ourselves to sin and death. Slaves hardly have this capacity.

 

This passage must be taken metaphorically. Paul himself states a few verses beforehand that he is writing in human terms to illustrate a point.

 

-Kerplunk

Ok, it was "taken out of context." I think that your bias makes you think it should be taken metaphorically however, and in your previous post you had already excused slave talk as being metaphorical.

 

"Slaves of gods" is always metaphorical because there are no gods.

 

Seriously, the study of the ancient Sumerian and Babylonian texts was one of the reasons that I deconverted. The idea of "gods" predated the Hebrews, and the texts are no less "inspirational."

 

Here's a few comparisons I made while perusing babylonian wisdom literature:

 

Babylonian:

Mayest thou make thy heart to incline

obediently to thy God,

For it is that that is acceptable unto God.

Biblical:

May the words of my mouth and the

Meditation of my heart be pleasing in

your sight, 0 Lord, my Rock and my

Redeemer.

Psa. 19:14

Babylonian:

Open not thy mouth widely in chatter,

set a watch on thy lips.

Give not utterance publicly to thine

innermost thoughts.

If thou speakest in hast, later thou wilt

have to withdraw thy words.

And to learn to hold thy peace

thou shalt exert thy mind.

Biblical:

Do you see a man who speaks in haste?

There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Prov. 29:20

 

He who guards his lips guards his life,

but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin.

Prov 13:3

Babylonian:

Prayer, weeping, and humble prostrations

Shalt thou offer unto Him daily.

Then shall thy power become mighty,

And thou shalt be fully guided on

the right way by God.

Biblical:

If my people, who are called by my name,

will humble themselves and pray and

seek my face and turn from their wicked

ways, then will I hear from heaven and

will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

2Chron. 7:14

Babylonian:

The fear of God begetteth prosperity.

Sacrifice prolongeth life,

And prayer looseth sin.

Biblical:

The fear of the Lord adds length to life,

but the years of the wicked are cut short.

Prov. 10:27

 

I have several more pages of this kind of comparison. Meaningless to you, probably. "Just coincidence." Right?

 

And there is still more. The Babylonians had prophecy too. They performed sacrifices, just like the Israelites. Their laws were almost identical. Israel is a “mini-me” of Babylon; a near eastern wannabe.

 

But Israel sure could beat up on those little petty outposts in Canaan, couldn't they? Funny they had such problems with the Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians. But they did evil in the sight of the lord, right? Excuses, to me, an explanation to you.

[Kerplunk288]

 

A similar sentiment can be found in the Creation account. It would serve you well to juxtapose the Hebrew Creation account to the Babylonian Creation account (The Enuma Elish). In the Babylonian account, man is made from the remnants of the defeated demi-god, Kingu. He is created to serve and wait on gods, as a slave waits on his master. In the Hebrew account, God fashions man for the earth, and breathes his own breath into man, effectively creating man in his own image, rather than out of a second-rate demi-god. Additionally, God gives man dominion and stewardship over the entire earth. If atheists object to the language of the Bible, then I would imagine they would have a field day with Babylonian religious texts.

 

-Kerplunk

I wish to address this part of your post. I think your concept of juxtaposition of religious texts is a good strategy for understanding the development of religion and religious concepts. You might want to examine their Psalms, Proverbs and Lamentations as well.

 

Ahem.

 

Now I wonder if you imagine that a person born in Babylonia (or Sumeria or Akkadia) could actually be a slave created to serve the gods. I suspect that you would say that is impossible because gods don't exist. And you would be right. If one mythology seems better than another mythology, that does not make it "true."

 

But you do acknowledge that people were held against their will and forced to serve humans, no? There are texts in all ancient civilizations acknowledging the institution of slavery, and the Hebrews were no exception. Where do you think they got the idea?

 

You are correct that I would not believe that the Babylonians could actually be a slave created to serve the gods, because I do not believe in the existence of their gods (Though I will concede that despite the radically different understanding, I think they were trying to articulate a truth about the same God.) However, I think given the Babylonians written tradition, which admittedly I know little of, I would tentatively assert that the Babylonians understood themselves as actually created to serve the gods.

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

You are correct that I would not believe that the Babylonians could actually be a slave created to serve the gods, because I do not believe in the existence of their gods (Though I will concede that despite the radically different understanding, I think they were trying to articulate a truth about the same God.) However, I think given the Babylonians written tradition, which admittedly I know little of, I would tentatively assert that the Babylonians understood themselves as actually created to serve the gods.

 

-Kerplunk

I could buy that. I think many Christians would feel the same way (whether the scripture backed them up or not).

 

I think it's interesting that you consider the possibility that the "god" could be the same god.

 

My research suggests that the Sumerians and early Babylonians were polytheistic (the god Marduk as a single god being a late development). The texts are very interesting, but quite frankly strange and at times disturbing.

 

Would you say that the "revelation" to the Sumerians and Babylonians (for how else could they have knowledge of the gods) was less complete than the one for the Hebrews? That is, was their revelation accurate, but differing in theology and details from the Hebrews?

[Kerplunk288]

Ok, it was "taken out of context." I think that your bias makes you think it should be taken metaphorically however, and in your previous post you had already excused slave talk as being metaphorical.

 

"Slaves of gods" is always metaphorical because there are no gods.

 

Seriously, the study of the ancient Sumerian and Babylonian texts was one of the reasons that I deconverted. The idea of "gods" predated the Hebrews, and the texts are no less "inspirational."

 

I have several more pages of this kind of comparison. Meaningless to you, probably. "Just coincidence." Right?

 

And there is still more. The Babylonians had prophecy too. They performed sacrifices, just like the Israelites. Their laws were almost identical. Israel is a “mini-me” of Babylon; a near eastern wannabe.

 

But Israel sure could beat up on those little petty outposts in Canaan, couldn't they? Funny they had such problems with the Assyrians, Babylonians and Egyptians. But they did evil in the sight of the lord, right? Excuses, to me, an explanation to you.

 

Although, like I've stated, I'm not a Scriptural scholar, nor do I intend to be one (philosophy and theology simply interest me more), I am completely in favor of a historical critical approach to the Scriptures. Obviously the Hebrews were influenced by surrounding Near-East nations. I readily admit that the Scriptures were influenced by other religious texts, either conforming to the styles and beliefs of the time, or in explicit reaction to said styles and beliefs. For this reason I am receptive to reading other religious texts.

 

Take the Historical books for examples, they were compiled and edited by descendants from the tribe of Judah after the Babylonian Exile. Not surprisingly they have a overwhelming bias favoring the Southern Kingdom. Regardless of the actual behavior the Northern Kingdom's kings, they were considered evil. The Book of Kings completely minimizes the accomplishments of King Omri, relegating him to no more than a footnote. In reality, King Omri established relative peace and prosperity in the Northern Kingdom. I recognize this as a bias and flaw bound to the authors. Although I believe it to be divinely inspired, I do not think it is without human flaws.

 

When I read Homer I don't recoil with disgust, thinking of all the falsehoods being expounded by this ignorant pagan. Homer's writings, properly understood, give a wealth insight into our human nature. Although as a Catholic I believe that my religion and my tradition is the most correct, I do not believe that all other traditions are therefore completely incorrect. The Judaic-Christian tradition is not the only source of truth.

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

Although I believe it to be divinely inspired, I do not think it is without human flaws.

 

-Kerplunk

That was a good post; very interesting.

 

The line above intrigues me. How do you distinguish between divine inspiration and human manipulation?

[Kerplunk288]

I could buy that. I think many Christians would feel the same way (whether the scripture backed them up or not).

 

I think it's interesting that you consider the possibility that the "god" could be the same god.

 

My research suggests that the Sumerians and early Babylonians were polytheistic (the god Marduk as a single god being a late development). The texts are very interesting, but quite frankly strange and at times disturbing.

 

Would you say that the "revelation" to the Sumerians and Babylonians (for how else could they have knowledge of the gods) was less complete than the one for the Hebrews? That is, was their revelation accurate, but differing in theology and details from the Hebrews?

 

Well if we are going to be honest with the religious development of the Hebrew people, then we have to acknowledge that monotheism is a relatively late addition. Strictly speaking, they were first henotheistic. They acknowledged the existence of other gods, but practiced devotion to only one God, Yahweh (who may or may not have a feminine counterpart Asherah).

 

I would tentatively agree with your last assessment. But it may depend on our understanding of revelation, and whether, if the surrounding religious texts are considered to be revealed, whether they are revealed for the sake of their own people (e.g. Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians etc), or if they are revealed in order to lay the groundwork for a later revelation (e.g. Judaic-Christian tradition). Honestly, I have not properly considered the issue however.

 

-Kerplunk

[Kerplunk288]

Although I believe it to be divinely inspired, I do not think it is without human flaws.

 

-Kerplunk

That was a good post; very interesting.

 

The line above intrigues me. How do you distinguish between divine inspiration and human manipulation?

 

With very careful consideration and grace. I think ultimately there needs to be a comprehensive understanding of the historical and cultural context (understanding not only the writer's themselves, but understanding how the writer's understood themselves), as well as an understanding of the the tradition's interpretation of the text.

 

I don't pretend, or at least hope that I do not pretend, that it is an easy accomplishment. I recognize that it is incredibly difficult. That is why there is such disagreement over these texts from both religious and secular circles.

 

-Kerplunk

[Shyone]

Although I believe it to be divinely inspired, I do not think it is without human flaws.

 

-Kerplunk

That was a good post; very interesting.

 

The line above intrigues me. How do you distinguish between divine inspiration and human manipulation?

 

With very careful consideration and grace. I think ultimately there needs to be a comprehensive understanding of the historical and cultural context (understanding not only the writer's themselves, but understanding how the writer's understood themselves), as well as an understanding of the the tradition's interpretation of the text.

 

I don't pretend, or at least hope that I do not pretend, that it is an easy accomplishment. I recognize that it is incredibly difficult. That is why there is such disagreement over these texts from both religious and secular circles.

 

-Kerplunk

That is precisely why I asked the question. It must be quite difficult even for someone with your scholarship.

 

I can of course understand different interpretations of scripture between secular and religious people, but what are we to make of disagreements in interpretation or significance of scripture among religious people (of the same religion, of course)? If grace is required for interpretation, and they arrive at different conclusions, then how do you know whose grace is correct?

[Kerplunk288]

Although I believe it to be divinely inspired, I do not think it is without human flaws.

 

-Kerplunk

That was a good post; very interesting.

 

The line above intrigues me. How do you distinguish between divine inspiration and human manipulation?

 

With very careful consideration and grace. I think ultimately there needs to be a comprehensive understanding of the historical and cultural context (understanding not only the writer's themselves, but understanding how the writer's understood themselves), as well as an understanding of the the tradition's interpretation of the text.

 

I don't pretend, or at least hope that I do not pretend, that it is an easy accomplishment. I recognize that it is incredibly difficult. That is why there is such disagreement over these texts from both religious and secular circles.

 

-Kerplunk

That is precisely why I asked the question. It must be quite difficult even for someone with your scholarship.

 

I can of course understand different interpretations of scripture between secular and religious people, but what are we to make of disagreements in interpretation or significance of scripture among religious people (of the same religion, of course)? If grace is required for interpretation, and they arrive at different conclusions, then how do you know whose grace is correct?

 

For the religious person this comes down to faith. I don't think it is irrational for a person to see two different, nevertheless equally compelling, interpretations of Scripture, and then ultimately choose one to believe in. I think it would be irrational for a person to see two different interpretations, with one being vastly superior to another, and then choose the inferior interpretation.

 

For this reason I don't think atheism is irrational. I think that there are many presumptions in modern atheism which draws hasty conclusions about reality, but atheism in general, I do not believe is irrational.

 

We may never break certain impasses. I think it's healthy for atheists and theists alike to recognize this, be honest with our assertions, and agree that differing perspectives may not necessarily be irrational.

 

-Kerplunk

[Vigile]

Meaningless to you, probably. "Just coincidence." Right?

 

Jeez dude, your level of knowledge regarding philosophy and such are a great contribution to this board and much appreciated, but do you have to be so damned condescending?

[Shyone]

Meaningless to you, probably. "Just coincidence." Right?

 

Jeez dude, your level of knowledge regarding philosophy and such are a great contribution to this board and much appreciated, but do you have to be so damned condescending?

You're right. I was having an internal conversation and recalling what other theists had said when they were shown the same types of passages.

 

Many, if not most of the theologists have accepted that it is not a concidence, but it's happens on boards (and in some reference material) often enough that I was anticipating it.

 

Here is one example from a Web site called Science in Christian Perspective:

 

The parallelism between the creation account in Genesis and in the Babylonian myth is by no means obvious. In the latter account Marduk succeeds in slaying the goddess Tiamat, and then splits her carease to form the heavens and the earth. J. V. Kinnier Wilson comments: "As to the only other serious proposition that has been made in favor of a relationship between the two accounts, namely, that both works follow a common sequence for the acts of creation or other events which they describe, we believe the comparison to be partly artificial, partly explainable in terms of coincidence. Thus it seems very probable that the epic has no connections of any kind or at any point with Genesis, and that each is sui generis." ("The Epic of Creation," in Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D. Winton Thomas, New York: Harper Torchbook, 1961, P. 14.)

 

I jumped the gun.

[Franko47]

 

Slaves do not act of their own will, but rather of the will of their master. If we truly are either slaves of sin and death or of God and righteousness, none of our actions would have any moral weight - good or bad. It would undermine all of Paul's salvific theology if man were truly and mostly explicitly a slave. What difference is it who are master is, if we are still slaves nonetheless? Yet, Paul states that we "offer" ourselves to sin and death. Slaves hardly have this capacity.

 

This passage must be taken metaphorically. Paul himself states a few verses beforehand that he is writing in human terms to illustrate a point.

 

-Kerplunk

 

 

Yeah, interesting, but hopelessly irrelevant. The reality of it is, that God's Will prevails in all things. And besides, none of our actions have any moral weight anyways. Those aren't the criteria for the Judgement. Only submission to the Will of God and Jesus. Where have you been ?

 

God is our outright Master. Totally. Self-autonomy ? An intriguing idea, but about a million Christians would beg to differ. Islam requires total submission as well. That's where they get the word. Total submission isn't much difference than being "owned".

 

Besides, there is a difference between "slave" and "zombie". We become a slave to something when we are reluctant, or powerless, or afraid to challenge it or revoke it's control.

 

I'm certain you can drum up a philosopher or two who might elaborate on that.

[MultifariousBirdLady]

Franko,

You make a lot of good points in your posts here. However, it seems that you are painting all religious concepts of "God" or "Gods" with one broad brush, which I think is inaccurate.

 

Why must I be reduced to a helpless child, at the mercy of mysterious god-beings, just for the sake of wanting to believe in something greater than myself ? Why must I become worthless in such a process ? That is what religion dictates, every time. Why can't I have value as well as the God ?

 

Many of us here (including me) have experienced firsthand this kind of religious thinking about "the human place" relative to the Christian God, especially in conservative churches. But this is not necessarily true in more liberal forms of Christianity (esp. those incorporating process theology), or in other religions.

 

One of the most profound religious experiences I've ever had -- which was in a Pagan context -- directly countered the kind of religious philosophy you refer to above (which I grew up with, too).

 

This is one of the major criticisms I have of religion, the fact that it tries to demote if not demoralize the the humanistic element. If I don't have autonomy, even in a universal sense, if I do not own myself, then I have no rights. It matters little how benevolent the "god" may be. There use to be a sense of philosophy within theology that was about Man meeting God "half-way". Now, it seems, more and more, it's about the individual being worth "nothing" without some kind of approval by their God. In some ways, radical Islam and Christianity (fundamentalism) have regressed this concept right back into the middle ages.

 

Again, I agree with you with respect to conservative Christianity and the other forms of religion with a "master/slave" mentality.

 

My point is that there are religious ways of thinking of the "human place" which are very different than this. Since you put this thread in the "ex-Christian theism or spirituality" section I thought you might want to know that.

[BlueGiant]

Flip answer: Only if you are playing me in Team Fortress 2.

 

In all seriousness, in a strictly amoral sense, yes someone can own a human. Through a serious amount of conditioning, possible lobotomy, general destruction of the psyche, in other words, abuse, one could do so. Of course, at that point the question is do you actually have a human being left?

[NotBlinded]

Why must I be reduced to a helpless child, at the mercy of mysterious god-beings, just for the sake of wanting to believe in something greater than myself ? Why must I become worthless in such a process ? That is what religion dictates, every time. Why can't I have value as well as the God ?

 

It's like surrendering your soul to an unknown. Scary. Perhaps that's why I held back a part of myself even when I was a Christian. There seemed something very reckless about handing everything you are over to this controversial and complicated God-being. Perhaps some of you had a similar experience.

 

Comment is invited, it's ok to tangent here since I've tried to cover a lot.

This is probably going to sound a little trite, but the religious institutions don't want people to move beyond a childlike faith in God. If people were able to have a mature understanding of the divine, the church would no longer be needed. Religion is supposed to help you grow into a spirutually mature adult, but it doesn't. It stunts you and keeps you in need.