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 >> indict God of moral wrongdoing. Think about it. God is a person and we are >> God's property; so technically we are His slave. So if all instances of >> slavery is wrong, God is in the wrong for having us as slaves. >> >> Here is an excellent sermon on the topic of being Slaves to Christ, by >> John MacArthur: >> >> http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-321.htm >> >> Also, by way of a side note, Jesus does speak approvingly of slavery: For >> example, in Matthew 6:24 Jesus said this, "No man can be a slave to two >> masters." I anticipate that you all will try to show that not all versions >> say "slave" but MacArthur addresses this issue and goes to the Greek and the >> Godspeed translation to demonstrate that Jesus probably was talking about >> slaves. I'll get Rusty and Hugh's take on this passage, since they are >> Greek scholars. But Godspeed should suffice for now. >> >> Bobby >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM, D C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> I haven't done any great study myself, but remember reading a study >> that seemed to assert that "slavery" often mentioned in the Bible is >> poorly interpreted from multiple roots, where sometimes it means out >> and out slavery as we are used to the definition, while other times it >> is referring to indentured servants of some sort as Rob described. >> However, even "slavery" as it relates to the Israelites in Egypt >> doesn't have equal connotation to the slavery we think of from our >> country's history. They were more like a usurped or conquered nation. >> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
