Suppose you wanted millions of slaves for yourselves and your descendants.

reply to post by LHP666

Says who? "god"? The bible? Tis a tad biased, methinks.
My point stands, in spite of your attempt to build a strawman. A biblical body count would be most interesting. Let's find out who the real monster is.

LOL! "Straw man"? You made the comment to the other poster that you were going to accept the Bible as true for the sake of argument about body counts. So I'm engaging you on your previous acceptance of it for the sake of argument. My question is in line with that context you accepted earlier.

And lastly, your argument is moot. Every death that's ever been recorded from Adam to today has been by God's sovereign choice. Kinda comes with being God.

That's some choice you gave me. It's either I worship a loser, or I'm a hypocrite. Is there a third option? LOL!

THAT ^ is a classic "straw man". I never said or implied that either you were a loser, or that refusing to worship God made you one. Re-read what I said.

Yes it is a jew god. And conveniently the jews are gods special chosen people. It's a coincidence! Move along, nothing to see here.

No, He isn't a "jew god". He existed prior to Abraham's birth. The descendents of Abraham are Jews. God is a descendent of no one. If God is a Jew then anyone or anything that He created is a Jew, even your beloved Lucifer and you.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


I think this thread has a very valid point, even if coated in obvious sarcasm.

I recently had a discussion regarding the mention of the greek word "Doulos" in scripture.

a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
a slave
metaph., one who gives himself up to another's will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
devoted to another to the disregard of one's own interests
a servant, attendant

www.searchgodsword.org...
www.biblestudytools.com...

Obviously many religious people claim this kind of "Slavery" or servitude is of a person's own will.....

Yes of course, because they've been told they risk being "sinful", "dirty", "ungodly" or even worse; they will be eternally tortured. Like holding a whip to slave.

Religion effectively polarizes morality in this way; obviously the "Devil" or "Satan" being the polar opposite to the "all good" God.

The majority of us have been born into cultures where literal, physical slavery is no longer practiced. We have no direct experience with it, though most of us have at least an intellectual understanding of some aspects of it. Consider, then, the relationship between master and slave. The apostles had a good reason to use the word that means "slave" (doulos). They wanted us to understand that in our relationship with God we not only experience the joys of freedom as His children but also the serious requirement to obey as His slaves.

www.bibletools.org...

I think that's speaks volume about how the religious infrastructure works; a slave, a serf; willingly doing the "work of God" because unwillingness would lead to "evil".

Religion certainly might be "useful" for society, perhaps a long time ago such scare tactics were an affective means to control society, and provide a beacon of loyalty for any given member within a society.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Yes of course, because they've been told they risk being "sinful", "dirty", "ungodly" or even worse; they will be eternally tortured. Like holding a whip to slave.

Absurdly false.

Read Romans 8:1.

Not sure if you're ignorant or purposely ignoring the Christian position. Romans 8:1 should put that to rest on what we believe.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Romans 8:1

New International Version (©1984)
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

New Living Translation (©2007)
So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus.

English Standard Version (©2001)
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

What's your point? It's not false; maybe people do not wish to follow the spirit of Jesus; maybe they think he was an ordinary human like any other humanist or "saint" throughout history.

My points still stands about the etymology of "doulos" and why the Apostles used it. It's not "aburdly false" at all - Infact, as many of your Christians would contend "it's open to interpretation". I'd beg to differ; i think the bible is very direct.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

Fair points, but two things:

1.) As for the notion that religion was created as a tool for placing one man in the bondage of another man, there is scant historical evidence of this. The evidence is that religion came first, and then the power-hungry used it as a tool after it had already "caught on". The OP even alludes to this with the reference to Constantine.

But what does this require? If one suddenly starts listening to everything Constantine said, that means they had already lost touch with intuition, the source of individual integrity, and need a human to lead them. Such people do not need religion to be slaves; they are slaves already because they have a slave mentality. They will follow somebody, whether a religious leader or a celebrity.

This is my point about it being a thorny and complicated issue. This cut-and-dry "oh it's a tool for control" mentality is juvenile and does not look at the whole picture.


2.) Here's where I put on my "former alcoholic" hat. When it comes to slavery, one "master" I've had has brought me much misery was my desire for a good buzz. It is written in Christian scripture, "He who sins is a slave to sin" (and incidentally the Buddha had this figured out half a millenium earlier). I would rather listen to my angels and put my demons on a leash, than blaspheme my angels to play in the mud with my demons. (These are metaphors, in case that wasn't obvious.) This I had to learn through bitter experience.

That is my own anecdote, and I'm not implying that any of it applies to you or anybody else. All I'm trying to do with it is provide some perspective on this notion of "slavery", and what it means to me personally. To be honest though, I do believe we all serve masters, whether inner ones or outer ones, because something gets us out of bed in the morning.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare


YOU claimed Christians "toe the line" because they have been told this:

Yes of course, because they've been told they risk being "sinful", "dirty", "ungodly" or even worse; they will be eternally tortured. Like holding a whip to slave.

It's rubbish, Christians have Romans which includes Romans 8:1.

There is no condemnation for us, nothing to "risk".

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

 

Fair points, but two things:

1.) As for the notion that religion was created as a tool for placing one man in the bondage of another man, there is scant historical evidence of this. The evidence is that religion came first, and then the power-hungry used it as a tool after it had already "caught on". The OP even alludes to this with the reference to Constantine.

But what does this require? If one suddenly starts listening to everything Constantine said, that means they had already lost touch with intuition, the source of individual integrity, and need a human to lead them. Such people do not need religion to be slaves; they are slaves already because they have a slave mentality. They will follow somebody, whether a religious leader or a celebrity.

This is my point about it being a thorny and complicated issue. This cut-and-dry "oh it's a tool for control" mentality is juvenile and does not look at the whole picture.

2.) Here's where I put on my "former alcoholic" hat. When it comes to slavery, no "master" I've ever had has brought me more misery than my desire for a good buzz. It is written in Christian scripture, "He who sins is a slave to sin" (and incidentally the Buddha had this figured out half a millenium earlier). I would rather listen to my angels and put my demons on a leash, than blaspheme my angels to play in the mud with my demons. (These are metaphors, in case that wasn't obvious.) This I had to learn through bitter experience.

That is my own anecdote, and I'm not implying that any of it applies to you or anybody else. All I'm trying to do with it is provide some perspective on this notion of "slavery", and what it means to me personally. To be honest though, I do believe we all serve masters, whether inner ones or outer ones, because something gets us out of bed in the morning.

edit on 23-6-2011 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)

As for the notion that religion was created as a tool for placing one man in the bondage of another man, there is scant historical evidence of this. The evidence is that religion came first, and then the power-hungry used it as a tool after it had already "caught on". The OP even alludes to this with the reference to Constantine.

I would contend that human decency does not come from religion; it precedes it.

In regards to Constantine; he accepted and promoted it as a state religion; and thus it's inevitable growth and spread across the world.

I don't think the appeal to majority argument can support religion as being a "good" thing for individual people, or even societies; Religion is a useful tool of control, but i would argue that it doesn't promote unity, or community (perhaps for the followers or members but not for society in general)

If one suddenly starts listening to everything Constantine said, that means they had already lost touch with intuition, the source of individual integrity, and need a human to lead them. Such people do not need religion to be slaves; they are slaves already because they have a slave mentality. They will follow somebody, whether a religious leader or a celebrity.

Indeed, i would agree, North Korea doesn't need religion to use the same techiques of devotion, loyalty and commitment to the "divine" leader, to the dictator. Religion works on a supernatural level, the safety of the dictatorship is protected by it's unfalsifiable nature.

2.) Here's where I put on my "former alcoholic" hat. When it comes to slavery, no "master" I've ever had has brought me more misery than my desire for a good buzz

I can relate:-

Perhaps you'll find rationale in this quote by George Bernard Shaw:-

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one

I don't think "how it makes you feel" should be a significant reason for doing something, or believing something.

"He who sins is a slave to sin"

We are all responsible for our "sin", a human sacrifice (vicarious redemption) does not absolve our own repsonsibility. People's thoughts should be our guilt when we commit sin, and we must understand the importance of forgiveness, whether it's regarding other people or yourself, at the first acknowledgement of "sin" seems to be forgiveness, it's an important thing.

We can't just look to the sky and expect to be forgiven.

I do believe we all serve masters, whether inner ones or outer ones, because something gets us out of bed in the morning.

We won't truly be free until we open-our minds. A master should not be the reason to get out of bed. It should not be the reason you give to charity, or be kind to your fellow humans.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


In the past, The mothers' of unbaptised babies certainly thought they were "risking" something if they did not adhere to church dogma, and the word of the Priest (or the word of God; the bible)

Various other metaphysical claims in the bible are enough to scare anyone into submission.

The bible insists upon itself, as all "human goodness" - Well i disagree, and i find it incredibly servile, even if you claim it's of a person's own free will.

It's as if without a master or (the spirit of Jesus); religious fanatics would be out raping, killing and theiving. I find that a scary prospect.

reply to post by ExistentialNightmare

I agree with parts of that and have quibbles with other parts that I don't feel the need to spend time debating. Just one thing I wanted to get out there.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
We can't just look to the sky and expect to be forgiven.

Agreed, although from my experience forgiveness does occur if you comprehend the forces within you that led to your actions and repent. While I often consider myself to be a Christian because of the power the words of Christ have had in my life, and I've come to believe Jesus was who he said he was (the latter point is definitely faith, but we all have our superstitions), other Christians typically would not consider me a Christian.

I don't fit in with pretty much any church because I have serious issues with the basic dogma. This notion that as soon as you say "Jesus you're my Lord, come into my life, etc." you suddenly become part of an "in club" with exclusive access to a world of eternal bliss and everybody not in that club gets to roast in eternal torment, is a pretty sore spot with me. It smacks of wishful thinking, an easy way out, and is frankly nihilistic.

I do believe what we do in this life has consequences which are profound enough that we should tremble a bit. I have reason to believe this because my escape from vice was precipitated by a terrifying psychological event which I can only call an act of grace. But my road since that event has been anything but easy, and every time I've tried to take the "Jesus exit" and just go to church every week and try to be good, it doesn't work. The skeptical questions about dogma would come back in full force and demand an answer; meanwhile I would slack off and lose ground in my battle against my vices. I was a hardcore atheist for ten years, and it seems once a skeptic, always a skeptic. So I've learned I was not saved so I could rest; I have to keep digging to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Like most institutions/belief systems etc. etc. religion has had good and bad results, not being religious myself I can still say (from studying history with an open mind), that overall, religion has been a positive force in the world.

I understand the desire to blame all of the world's ills on this or that (makes it so we don't have to acknowledge humanities often brutal nature), but it's not based on reason it's based on bigotry.

reply to post by SevenBeans


Yes, you could also argue that Nazi ideology would be "positive" for the human race overall. For example, you could argue that "Eugenics" or "Master Race"would be the best way forward (but it doesn't prevent human suffering)

You cannnot hide the fact that religion has caused much torment, much division, much separation over time. Many individual people have suffered in it's wrath. The Catholic Church for one has much to apolgise for:-

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Yes, you could also argue that Nazi ideology would be "positive" for the human race overall. For example, you could argue that "Eugenics" or "Master Race"would be the best way forward (but it doesn't prevent human suffering)

You cannnot hide the fact that religion has caused much torment, much division, much separation over time. Many individual people have suffered in it's wrath. The Catholic Church for one has much to apolgise for:-

Can you name any powerful institution etc. etc. that has nothing to apologize for? There is a rough correlation in which the more power and influence an institution has, the more they have "to apologize for." This is why people who hate the church, or hate America, or hate the Jews, (or hated Rome) never have any shortage of "evidence" to prove that they are completely "bad" and "evil."

reply to post by SevenBeans


Name a powerful institution? What about cancer research groups or secular charity. Of course powerful institutions are not infallable, much the same as religious dogma, or political ideology is not infallable, or excempt from criticism.

This is why people who hate the church, or hate America, or hate the Jews, (or hated Rome) never have any shortage of "evidence" to prove that they are completely "bad" and "evil."

Hate the church? I guess it's relative to which relgiion you support; it's not just anti-atheists (or atheists) that are guilty of that, even people who believe in God have concerns with, or even "hate" religion.

Having concerns for the philosophy or the socio-political effects is not the same as "hate". There are group or movements that many people criticisms of; whether it is pro-abortionists, pro-lifers, communists or anarchists. Everyone has their "pet peeve" and it's very much relative to their own position.

Hate America? That's a bit general, hating a mass of land seems pointless to me; are you talking about Capitalism or a specific presidential administration?

Hate Jews? That's just xenophobia, anti-semitism doesn't appear to be a respectable position, much like racism.

Hated Rome? Again, it's just the name for an area of land.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Can you name any powerful institution etc. etc. that has nothing to apologize for? There is a rough correlation in which the more power and influence an institution has, the more they have "to apologize for." This is why people who hate the church, or hate America, or hate the Jews, (or hated Rome) never have any shortage of "evidence" to prove that they are completely "bad" and "evil."

edit on 23-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

You use "bad" and "evil".

I prefer hypocritical, It's more accurate.

Some .orgs make no pretense at being "good". The church does. With them, it's "do as we say, not as we do". They do have a lot to apologize for. Just a cursory glance at their history proves that, not to mention the things going on right now.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Name a powerful institution? What about cancer research groups or secular charity. Of course powerful institutions are not infallable, much the same as religious dogma, or political ideology is not infallable, or excempt from criticism.

Hate the church? I guess it's relative to which relgiion you support; it's not just anti-atheists (or atheists) that are guilty of that, even people who believe in God have concerns with, or even "hate" religion.

Having concerns for the philosophy or the socio-political effects is not the same as "hate". There are group or movements that many people criticisms of; whether it is pro-abortionists, pro-lifers, communists or anarchists. Everyone has their "pet peeve" and it's very much relative to their own position.

Hate America? That's a bit general, hating a mass of land seems pointless to me; are you talking about Capitalism or a specific presidential administration?

Hate Jews? That's just xenophobia, anti-semitism doesn't appear to be a respectable position, much like racism.

Hated Rome? Again, it's just the name for an area of land.

edit on 23-6-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)

It seems that you're intentionally missing the point that I was making.

No, I'm not referring to an area of land etc. etc. and I wouldn't describe a cancer research group as "powerful."

Originally posted by LHP666
I prefer hypocritical, It's more accurate.

Some .orgs make no pretense at being "good". The church does. With them, it's "do as we say, not as we do". They do have a lot to apologize for. Just a cursory glance at their history proves that, not to mention the things going on right now.

You have all the cliches of religious bigotry down pat (and the church says that we're all sinners).

Saying that such a large and powerful orginization has made mistakes and has things to apologize for is like stating the sky is blue. It's a pointless thing to be pre-occupied with (unless you're bigoted).

I don't know a single person who doesn't have things to apologize for (let alone a powerful instition made up of millions of people).

reply to post by SevenBeans


What about all the stigmatisation from preists? You forget how they gained their followers. You forget the misery religious ideology has caused and is still causing.

To insist that mother's unbaptised babies will go to purgotory (limbo) or to suggest that homosexuals are born in sin, seems to me to suggest that the religious dogma is filled with the bigotry that you accuse the OP with.

Study history, you'll learn that the catholic church has a lot to apologise for. And that's just 1 religion.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
What about all the stigmatisation from preists? You forget how they gained their followers. You forget the misery religious ideology has caused and is still causing.

I forget nothing, I consider the good and the bad... it's the bigots who forget everything but the negative.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
Study history, you'll learn that the catholic church has a lot to apologise for. And that's just 1 religion.

I have. The government of France also has a lot to apologize for (and that's just one government) so lets condemn government while we're at it.

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
to suggest that homosexuals are born in sin, seems to me to suggest that the religious dogma is filled with the bigotry that you accuse the OP with.

From my understanding their position is that we are all "born in sin."

Sodomy spreads disease like wildfire, the taboo against it (partly spread by the church and partly spread by the folks) prevented a lot more suffering than it caused.