Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Correct. Slaves can't do this.

Hold on Bill...

Webster's
Main Entry: slave
1 : a person held in servitude as the chattel of another

Mankind is not 'held' in servitude. We can leave or reject God any time we want. You are an example of this. Slaves could not do this. In short Bill, you are proof that we are not slaves.

Moreover, using this definition...
a person held in servitude as the chattel of another.
'Slave' as outlined here is one man owning another man as a material possesion which is clearly different than God owning the whole universe (us included) because He created it.


Certainly. You can leave God at any time and seek 'employment' to yourself. If this is what you want then you can most certainly do this. Of course if you wish to be separate from God in life...you will also be separated from God in death.


Perhaps you can explain something to me: Why should a man who wanted to be separated from God in life not be separated from God in death?




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill Snedden

No, according to you I am the slave that attempts to escape. Unfortunately, when I die, my rebellion will earn me eternal torment. In fact, there is no "escape" and this is the sense in which we are held. Your god owns the universe and makes all the rules. All I have is the choice between submitting to the cosmic slavemaster or burning forever. I don't call that "freedom" and neither does any thinking being.

Excuse me, but no. "Person" does not automatically mean "man" or even "woman" for that matter. Do you mean to deny that your god is a person? You would be the only Christian I know to hold that view. The Christian God of the Bible is a person. Not a physical person, certainly, but a person nonetheless. Christian apologists go to great lengths to differentiate their god from other gods (like Allah, or the Deist god) in this respect.

Besides which, we've already covered this. Mere creation does not automatically validate the morality of ownership. Especially when the creation is a rational, sentient being. All you've done here is beg the very question we're considering.

Really? Where would I go? You seem to forget that he's made all the rules. All the good jobs are his. He has formed the universe so that it's impossible for me to make a good living by myself.

After death, he's ensured that his slaves live on, to serve him eternally. Where do those who desire their own employment get to go? Eternal fire. What kind of a choice is that? Again, this is the freedom you allege we have?

You keep attempting to dodge that uncomfortable (for you) fact that your god has designed the universe so that rejecting him results in eternal torment. Not unlike the plantation owner who hunts down the runaway slave and kills him. However, unlike the African slave, I can't even hope for a place to hide. Your god is everywhere.

That sounds completely reasonable. Unfortunately that separation is only available on his terms. That is the essence of slavery. Your god has made all the rules & from them there is no escape; no freedom.

Your defense in this reminds me of the recent wrangling over WMD in Iraq. Every piece of evidence I present brings out a new objection on the same old ground.

SOMMS: "God owns us, but we're not slaves!"

Bill: "Well, the definition of slavery says 'chattel'."

SOMMS: "Well, it also says 'servitude'. Prove that we have to serve god!"

Bill: "Okay, here's some Bible passages that demonstrate that we serve god."

SOMMS: "Well, it says that slaves are the chattel of a 'person'. That means another human being. It doesn't apply to god!"

Bill: "But your god is a person."

SOMMS: "Yeah, well it also says 'held'. Prove that we're 'held'!"

Bill: "Okay, there's no escape from God's rules. If we can't get away, then we're being held."

SOMMS: "Yeah, well it also says..."

What's next? Are you going to question the meaning of "a" or "as"?

Donning for a moment my alternative theological thinking cap, I would ask you to think of this in a different way. Isn't it possible that God gave us to ourselves as a free gift? He didn't have to do so; that he did so is a reflection of his benevolence and the essence of why he is deserving of worship. He created us as moral free agents and in recognition of what that necessarily entails, and its relationship to his nature, gives us our freedom. Rejecting him bears no consequence, but he will hold us accountable to how we use our freedom. Not by any set of arcane laws, but by the standards inherent in our very nature.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Your point is unclear. You say we are 'slaves' yet we have freedom to whatever we want...even reject God...which you do. This doesn't sound at all like we are slaves...it sounds very much like freedom.


Is your position that we are 'slaves' because
-A:we can't reject God or
-B:if we reject God we go to Hell?


I think clearing this up would help out.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill Snedden

Qualitatively, there's no difference.

Let's say that I imprison a man in my house. I tell him that if he wants to stay in my house, he must do exactly as I say. I then give him a bunch of rules he must follow, ask him to do things, etc. He isn't happy with the arrangement and tells me that he wants to leave. "Fine", I say, "The front door is the only exit but it's wide open. However, there's a powerful bomb just outside the door that will explode whenever anyone walks through the door. You'll be killed for certain. Still, you're free to leave whenever you like."

Now, tell me how this man is "free" to make a choice to leave?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Fiach

SOMMS opines:

[B]Your point is unclear. You say we are 'slaves' yet we have freedom to whatever we want...even reject God...which you do. This doesn't sound at all like we are slaves...it sounds very much like freedom. ]/B]

I tried to explain that. I'll try again. A slave is owned by a slave owner. But in minute to hour periods of time the slave may be eating or sleeping as though free. And a slave can rebel with other slaves, and slay the master. But Patroller irregulars or army troops (a la John Brown's rebellion) eventually suppress them and kill them. They are free for a while after Massa's death but a tragic end awaits them. A slave may run away, through the woods and swamps he runs, and he is free for the first time. But usually he hears the baying of the Hounds, the thud of the horses hooves as the Master and the Patrollers rapidly gain ground on him. They throw a net on him, and take him back to the plantation to hang him in front of the other slaves.

Slaves and those who refuse God, can be temporarily free. But in each case they are fighting a heroic but tragic and losing fight against the cruel owner Simon Legree, or the cruel cosmic tyrant, God. The parallels are quite obvious.

Having said all of that, I add that it is Christian Myth and superstition, and I don't believe it. However, if the cruel Christian God did exist, I would not surrender. I would defy him knowing that I would lose. I would rather be right and lose than wrong and go to Heaven.


Is your position that we are 'slaves' because
-A:we can't reject God or
-B:if we reject God we go to Hell?

More the latter.


I think clearing this up would help out.

I really don't see what is not clear. I don't quite understand that you don't see what is, to me, quite obvious.

Fiach

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Ok. Then so you are claiming there is no difference between prison and society with law? In jail we can't break the law (ie we can't reject God)...in society if we reject the law we go to jail (ie if we reject God we go to hell).


Are you claiming this?





Well you are assuming your conclusion here...namely that we are imprisoned. Sure...IF we are imprisoned and have no freedom THEN your right.

However, if you are going to just assume your conclusion Bill...there is no need to present an argument. Just assume it and be done. But don't try to pass this off as a valid argument. It's not. I simply don't agree with your assumption.


My question to you is why are you assuming we are imprisoned in the first place?



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill Snedden

No, and we've already been through this. In a democratic society, we can change the laws. Remaining a member of society involves implicit consent to those laws.

I did not have the opportunity to consent to your god's authority over me.

What does it mean to be imprisoned? It means to be somewhere with no opportunity of leaving.

Tell me, where can I go where your god is not? It's a rhetorical question, of course for the answer is NOWHERE. Your god has provided no 'safe haven' for those who do not wish to be subject to his rule. It's his way or the highway (or low-way, as the case may be ).

*Whew!* Good thing I didn't do that...

My question to you is: where's my universe?

Let me try another analogy. We've used the African slave model a couple of times, so please bear with me as I use it again.

Your argument seems to me to boil down to, "you can choose hell, so your choices aren't constrained and therefore you're free." Would you pose the same argument to the African slave who, after having determined that escape is impossible, must "choose" between remaining in bondage or committing suicide?

Is she free?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
That doesn't change anything Bill. If you change the laws...you are still enslaved because if you reject the new law you will go to jail.

By your argument any society with law is jail.

You have to admit this is completely asinine. Yes?



So. You did not have the opportunity to consent to your parents authority.

You are therefore a slave to your parents. Correct?


Let me get this straight. You are complaining because you are 'confined' to the Universe.

:boohoo:




Quite to the contrary Bill. You have all the freedom in the world. You can completely leave God behind forever. Just create your own universe without God and go there. See...its easy!


Right, and as I've said before: the analogy is meaningless because it first assumes we are slaves...which is exactly what your trying to show.

Try this Bill...can you explain your point without using African slaves as an analogy? If you can't then there is something obviously messed up with your point.



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill Snedden

I don't know what your educational background or nationality is (perhaps you grew up and/or were educated in a non-democratic state), but the entire foundation of democracy is consent. If I choose to remain within a society, I implicitly consent to its laws. It's perfectly reasonable, because within a democracy I have the ability, through my vote, to have a say in how those laws are made.

It's also a founding principle that I can leave the society if I am unable to live by or desire not to consent to its laws. That's it. Pretty simple, but you seem unwilling to take on the actual concept, preferring to construct strawmen of what I'm trying to say. Namely:

And this is a strawman. I've not said that at all. Any society with laws that wouldn't permit me to leave it would indeed be a jail. However, I've not argued that, have I? A democratic state has no laws to prevent members from renouncing their citizenship and leaving. As a society, it is therefore not comparable to jail.

Dictatorial states, like the universe you say your god has created, are prisons. Prisons because we have no say in how they're run and yet no freedom to leave them.

Asked and answered. Children under the age of consent are not considered moral agents. Only moral agents have the ability of consent. Adult human beings are moral agents. Once a child has passed the age of consent, its parents no longer have authority over it.

Do you consider that your parents still have authority over you?

I'm not complaining about anything. I don't believe in this god, remember? All I'm saying is that your conception of god, one that owns the entire universe, sets all the rules, refuses to allow anyone who disagrees with him to leave peacefully, is a slavemaster.

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. All of these words flying back and forth when you've already conceded my point: your god claims human beings as his chattel. That is the very essence of slavery. Given that, you really shouldn't be trying to defend him against the charge of slavery. Instead you should be arguing that slavery isn't inherently evil. That ownership of one rational being by another isn't all bad. Certainly the Bible would support you in that, there are no condemnations of slavery there.

Of course, your god has created me without that ability, so it's really moot, isn't it? Another attempt at evading the conclusion is thus eliminated.

Besides which, my ability to create my own universe is not the point. All he would have had to have done is to have given dissenters the ability to go to some part of the universe where he freely relinquished his authority. Unfortunately, he didn't do that.

Hmmm. Let's see. I'm trying to argue that the situation in question is analogous to slavery and yet you're saying that I can't use slavery as the basis for my analogy? Do you see the flaw in your reasoning?

I'm not assuming anything as a conclusion. I'm only making an assumption for the point of an argument. That's what an analogy is. I'm saying, "Wait a minute. Put yourself in that situation for the sake of argument. Now, see how the conclusion works out exactly the same as in your argument? Therefore we can conclude that your situation has the same ramifications as if we were really slaves."

Assuming that A is B for the sake of argument is arguing by analogy and there's simply no other way to do it. And, by the way, if the slave analogy is the best way to make the point, then...NEWSFLASH!...it means that there is something messed up with your point. Namely that the analogy is a good one.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Ah ha...we finally start seeing your problem. God is not a democracy. This is a tautology...this is necessarily true: IF God exists THEN He does own everything and makes the rules. Man is not equal to God and in no way gets to vote as to what God should or should not do.

However, we aren't slaves...we have freedom. We can certainly reject His authority (as you do). All this means however is that we get exactly what we want. If you seek God you find Him and you get to be with Him. If you don't...you don't find God and you don't get to be with Him.

In this way people in Hell get exactly what they sought in life...existence with complete absence of God.



It really seems that you are Bill. Your saying IF God exists then He gets to make the rules and I don't.




No. You seem to be doing this Bill...
"Assume we are imprisoned (or slaves)..
...some statements...
...therefore we are just like slaves."

What you have to do is show that we have no freedom...like slaves. But you are left with an intractable problem. Because you can't possibly show this as you have used your freedom to reject God.

So what do you have left? Well you claim "Because rejecting God has consequences...we are not free". However, this is bull puckey Bill. You live in a society where rejecting law has severe consequences...yet you don't consider yourself a slave.


Then you say "But we can change laws". Well not really. You can't make murder legal. You can't make rape legal either. These laws are unchangable.

So in short Bill...you live in a society where
A-rejecting law has severe consequences
B-you can't really change these laws
...but you consider yourself free.

Yet you argue that IF God exists THEN
A-rejecting His law has severe consequences
B-you can't really change Gods laws
...therefore you are a slave


This is simply hypocritical. It is intellectually dishonest to sit here and claim you are free in one system but a slave in the next.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas