Once again, pardon the hiatus.
Physical slavery may have been abolished (although it surely exists in some countries). But what about the slavery that still exists, in its many insidious and subtle forms? What about the slavery of employees to their workers?
I think that's a poor use of the word
Are you saying there's no other type of slavery than physical slavery (e.g. the oppression suffered by black people in the deep south of America; or the slavery that was prevalent in Roman culture)? Are you saying there's no intangible forms of slavery? Can one not be psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually enslaved?
I think it was a valid and legitimate use of the word. I would say that anyone who is dominantly controlled, or mastered by a person, or thing (be it tangle or intangible) is a slave. I believe every human is a slave to at least something. Surely there's a certain thing or number of things in your own life, that you are a slave to? Would you be honest enough to list a few? At any rate, you're most certainly a slave to sin, like most of the world is. Jesus said, in John 8:34. '“Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.' Do you commit sin, Town Heretic? Yes? Then you're a slave to sin.
and I wouldn't use slavery to describe a voluntary position
The apostle Paul (he himself a 'bond-servant' - Romans 1:1- i.e. a slave) spoke of offering one's self to be a slave. Isn't offering, voluntary?
'Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?...Just as you used to offer yourselves as slaves to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness.' (Romans 6:16-19)
And he speaks of offering one's self as a slave to something intangible - impurity, wickedness, righteousness. What Paul has said in the above passage, shows that physical slavery isn't the only form of slavery.
(see what I mean about variance?).
No I don't see what you mean. Perhaps you can explain?
Any number, though those encompass a lot of law and progress. I only need one to make the case that society is a work in and about progress.
When, do you think, will society stop being a '
work in and about progress', and actually be a finished product? If the problem is society itself (which it is) - can society overcome itself, by its own volition?
What about the following evils: child & adult prostitution; drug trafficking; terrorism;
Those are illegal
So what if they're illegal? Their illegal status hasn't stopped people from doing those things. Making things illegal isn't enough to solve society's problems. Society needs to go to the root of the problems - which, as I've said before, is actually the corrupt, internal condition of human beings, otherwise known as sinful nature. But even if society did recognise the problem, it would be utterly incapable of solving it. The solution is God Himself. Divine intervention is absolutely needed. God intervening in the life of every individual, effecting a divine, definite change in a person's nature, bringing about inner transformation by His Spirit. Aswell as this individual intervention, there will certainly need to be divine intervention on a mass scale; else society shall surely destroy itself. I think the following verse is applicable:
'In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive. But it will be shortened for the sake of God's chosen ones.' (Matthew 24:22)
and so, as with any crime, our society is locked in a war with that criminal element.
Society very much seems to be losing that war, for it has not yet prevailed over that 'criminal element'. It's attacked on all sides, not just by one criminal element, but surely hundreds. Will society ever prevail? Absolutely not. At least not by its own doing.
Prostitution, they say, is one of the world's oldest professions. It is an evil that society has not, for thousands of years, taken active action to completely abolish. Why? I think it's because society values the freedom, rights, and liberty of individuals over morality itself.
By the way, I think prositution, like slavery, also exists in intangible forms. One of Google's definitions of prostitution is, '
the unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents for personal or financial gain.' And I don't it could be limited to just talents, but could include things such as resources, skills, personality traits, qualities, social connections, and so forth.
There's other words which can have broader meanings than the meanings people typically associate them with. Another example is 'rape'. Rape can also be used to describe/define that which is non-sexual. It could be said that 'rape' is any form of abuse in which someone takes advantage of, or selfishly uses a person for what they have or possess.
Depending on your moral perspective its odious or you're indifferent to the distinction between it and heterosexual marriage. In any event it isn't a crime and in a secular state shouldn't be. A long discussion that's been had in a number of threads here.
Why do you say it shouldn't be a crime in a secular state? Are you saying that same-sex marriage is only wrong according to the society/state that deems it to be wrong; and that it is not objectively wrong? If not, what are you saying?
There should be some type of universal, objective law, which applies across the board. A law that punishes crimes, no matter what governmental state is power; and no matter the context, environment, culture or scenario. Oh yes, there is. It's the Law of God, which despite all appearances,
is active and enforced throughout the world. For there are consequences and ramifications of breaking this Law - even if an individual is ignorant of it.
...What about all these evils - what has society done about them?
Too broad.
Is it the question that is too broad? If so, how? And how can a question be too broad? I can understand an answer being too broad, but a question? I don't see how.
Society is and has been doing a great many things on a number of the issues you noted.
A great many things, you say? One would think the world would be a blissful utopia by now, with the 'great many things' that society is doing, and has done. Yet is a mess, and has been ever since the Adamic fall.
You may say to me, 'Well, it takes time - they're working on it'.
I might on some. Mostly I'd say, as with crime, it's likely a war that never ends. Human beings have addressed many of these for the life of humanity with no final solution in sight.
There is a solution, but society, on the whole, can neither recognise nor implement it. I would actually say that the problems society faces, aren't the real issue. Humans themselves are the issue - they are the problem. They are the central problem from which all other problems arise. First and foremost, humans need to change - from the inside out. It has to be that way.
So I'm not sure what your complaint, again, broad as it is, should signify.
My complaint, or rather, my conviction, is that society, try as it might, will never ever solve its problems on its own. As mentioned earlier, it needs Divine intervention.
No government is or has been offered as a solution to all ills. Governments, especially modern ones, are our attempt to balance and protect right. We build laws and institutions to further that understanding that with liberty/freedom will come all sorts of human responses that are in violation of the intent of our compact.
Liberty and freedom for all! Humanity wants to be free, in all aspects, totally unrestrained. Yet that liberty and freedom (because it is in the hands of corrupt humans) brings forth depravity and destruction. Liberty and freedom are good in themselves, don't mistake me for saying that they're not; but when in the hands of those who are evil, it can't possibly be of any good use.
...What society doesn't recognise is that the problem is with the individual - if each individual wasn't evil, then society wouldn't be evil.
I think you're too broad again.
Again, how am I being too broad?
The nature of man is recognized by the majority of people in this country and has been by the majority of Christians for a few thousand years.
If the nature of man has been recognised, why hasn't something been done by people to change that nature? If I may answer my own question, I'd say that human nature hasn't been changed because people can't change themselves. God, who is outside of themselves, needs to change them.
Society also doesn't recognise that this internal change can only be wrought by God, through His Spirit - transforming a person from selfish to unselfish, from doing their own will to doing His will.
I don't think that's the problem.
If you don't think that's problem, then what is? And what's the solution?
I'd say that history evidences human progress, not a slide into something less, though within cycles there can be a waxing and waning.
You believe that humans are morally progressing? Yes, they're certainly progressing....
deeper and deeper into the depths of depravity. Doesn't the appearance of new evils (such as terrorism, genetically modified food, vaccinations, HIV) prove that to be the case? If you believe in the 'last days' you will be aware that society has progressed into a distinct state of depravity; a state which perhaps hasn't been seen since the days just before the Genesis flood, which wiped out the entire earth (apart from 8 people, and some animals) because of the evil performed therein.
From what standpoint, or on what basis, do you deem their regime to have been evil? Not saying that it wasn't. But i'm wondering, what are you basing your view on?
You don't have to wonder. Simply look at my designation. I can't think of a better word than evil to sum the Nazi experiment, fueled as it was by racist hatred and the dehumanization and attempted murder of whole peoples as the natural end of that process.
I don't think you quite understood my question. I was wondering how you, or society, can deem another culture as being evil; without having an objective standard of morality to back up your allegation? What is it that informs your allegation, or judgment? How can you (or society), with your
subjective judgment, declare them as being
absolutely and definitely evil? Where's the
objectivity?
While back on the subject of your continuing attempt to blame the slaughtered victims of the South Carolina church shooting...
And your continuing inability and incomprehension, to see it for what it was. I don't know whether it's just inability or stubborness.
You are merely judging by appearance.
No, I'm noting the facts at hand and against the unsupported notion
It's not an unsupported notion. It's supported by revelation, but you do not accept revelation, do you? Thankfully something needn't be accepted by you, in order to be true.
that those alleged to be actively and uniformly (since they all died) rebelling against God would be found in a worship service at a church.
It shouldn't be a surprise that criminals should be found at their place of operation.
It's not impossible, but it isn't in the realm of the likely and the simplest,
How do you know it's not likely? Where's your statistical research and evidence that has lead you to such a definite conclusion? If you are going to make an objective, probability-based statement - 'it isn't in the realm of the likely' - where's your mathematical/statistical findings to prove that it isn't? If it is not something you can prove statistically, why did you make such a statement in the first place?
most reasonable answer is that these people were there to worship and discuss and that an evil man came among them and ended their lives.
But do you know the reason why '
an evil man came among them and ended their lives'? Do you know the
root cause? Do you know, or are you aware of, the general rules (and there are rules) that bring evil upon a person/group of people?
Therefore you cannot recognise the incident for what it was - the wrath of God.
No reason to think it and I've answered on the sad nature and consequence of your approach. I've rejected it as rightly as Job rejected his friends in their similar estimation.
You reject the truth, which confronts you. Much like the Christ-crucifiers who rejected Him who is Truth. Perhaps they knew He is the Truth, yet still decided to reject Him. Or perhaps they didn't know He is the truth - and still rejected Him. I don't know what's more sad and tragic: knowing the truth and rejecting it, or rejecting the truth without knowing it.
And if it was possible for Job, then it breaks your posit as an automatic assumption, even without other scriptural support. And if your assumption can't be made and the appearance/facts at hand speak against it a reasonable man will believe, absent convincing evidence, that it is as it appears to be.
It's assumption for me to say that the shooting was the wrath of God? It was not an assumption, but a declaration, informed by, and based on, revelatory truth. A truth which has not been revealed to you. If it had been, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You deny, and continue to deny, that it was so.
I continue to reject an assumption that can't stand as a rule and runs contrary to any fact known. Sure.
There is a rule. The rule is this:
untimely deaths and tragedies befall a person because of disobedience, sin, and unrepentance. Luke 13:1-5 supports that rule. As for Job, this particular rule doesn't apply to him. For he was neither unrepentant nor living in sin.
And what is this 'pretty good reason' that you have, that assures you they were actual, true Christians?
The evidence speaks to it and nothing known speaks against it.
What evidence? What evidence have you provided? As far as I'm aware, you have provided none.
If the biblical principle of reaping and sowing doesn't apply to incidents such as these (which is what you are saying?), where and when does it apply then? Give some examples.
No, you can make your own argument for your exegesis and when it applies. My only task, in differing, is to establish reasonably that it isn't a rule, supra. Which I did easily enough with Job.
It is a rule though. It is one rule and the case of Job (and the saints who experience bad things) is another rule entirely. Why different rules? Because the causes are different. While one type of tragedy, or suffering, is caused by sin (e.g. the tragedy of the S.C.'innocents'); the other is not (e.g. the suffering of Job). Two different rules.
Our present time is seed time; in the other world we shall reap as we sow now.
Even now we reap. Consider smoking, for example. One begins the habit now in this world, and can reap the consequences now, in this world. Those consequences are well-known. E.g. having a heart attack; contracting lung disease; experiencing an early death.
The point remaining that Job had done nothing, sewn nothing that accounted for the destruction of his family and fortune. And that undoes your assumption.
If Job was entirely innocent or had done nothing, why is it that he repented (Job 42:6)? What was he repenting from, if he had done nothing?
Even the One (that is, Jesus Christ) Who had done nothing - He hadn't sinned or been rebellious - even He need to go through suffering (Hebrews 2:10; Hebrews 5:8). If Christ Himself needed to go through suffering, how much do his saints, his disciples, his followers? How much more do they need to go through fiery trials and sufferings, for the sake of perfection! The trials that Job underwent were for the purpose of purification. He emerged on the other side, purified, and in a better state than he was before - in all aspects. His sufferings didn't destroy him, but brought him into a new state of being and awareness. However, the S.C. 'saints' weren't enlightened by what they suffered, were they? They were destroyed. They died; Job didn't. They were in their sins. Job wasn't.
"The term “perfect” means properly “complete,” without defect. It does not imply that the man was sinless,
Who's saying that he was ? What man, apart from Christ, ever was or is sinless?
Which undoes your assumption.
I wasn't making an assumption in the first place. I do believe it's often the case, that a person who makes an assumption, is trying to prove something. I wasn't, and haven't, been trying to prove anything. As I think I've told you before, proof cannot be provided to you in this matter. You seem to think that everything can be proved with reason and logic. I don't believe this is so. There are many things which cannot be proved by reason or logic, yet these things are believed nonetheless.The existence of angels is an example.
Let me ask you. If these 'victims' (who were infact perpetrators of God's Law) were really as innocent and blameless as you seem to suggest, why would God allow them to die so tragically - where would be the justice/fairness in that?
Who said this world was just
Though the world may seem unfair and without justice, it is infact governed by a just God, Who ensures that no offender of His Law, slips through the cracks. Everyone gets what they deserve.
or that these people believed in asking for or receiving that sort of literal protection from God?
I don't quite get what you're saying, or trying to say? Do you really try to make sure that what you say is structured and delivered well, for the understanding of those who read your words? More on this later...
As I've already said, the nature of a man's death is a testimony of, or a testament to, the life he lived.
These died loving and worshiping God.
And you know that because? Because they were conducting a bible study in a church? That means they were automatically loving and worshipping God?
We are to worship Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). The fact that the people were worshipping in the surroundings of a religious building, shows that they were not at all worshipping in spirit and in truth. When did God ever say that He should be worshipped artificially, in such a building? Even the temple that the Jews built for worship, that temple was destroyed, and has not been rebuilt since. Since Christ came, the temple, or the place of worship, is no longer to be a structure or building, but our own bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). In that way, we worship 24/7; not just at a particular place and time.
God merely forgives, without dishing out justice? You think there was no consequences for those who killed Him?
Depends on what they did with the grace being offered, so it's not my place to say what came from it. Maybe some became his sheep. Maybe only others benefited from that remarkable moment. God knows. I don't have to know. I only have to accept that whatever came from it was to His purpose.
Why do you not, then, accept His purpose in other circumstances - such as in the S.C. shooting? Do you not think the shooting was to His purpose? Do you think it was not His will that such a thing should have happened? If God is truly sovereign (you at least seem to recognise this) then anything that happens to anyone, is according to His purpose, isn't it?
Is he any more evil and twisted than you are? Have you not committed murder yourself? If not in deed, then in thought and word - which is just as bad.
All sin has the same wage, so comparing sins and men absent grace is fruitless and with grace, pointless.
You seem to have a fine way of not answering questions directly. Quite a deflector aren't you?
By way of example, when you write, "If you were aware of the reality that pertains to this matter..." you are inferring that you are aware and occupy that superior position.
It's certainly a better position to be in, but does that make me superior as a person, because I know something that you don't? Of course not. I simply know something that you don't.
Consider this analogy:
One person has an orange. Another person also has an orange. One of them is given a banana. So now he has two pieces of fruit - an orange and a banana. Is he, therefore, superior to the other person because he has been given more fruit? I don't think so.
Were you not you couldn't recognize the lack in any other. Similarly, if you say, "You differ with the truth" then you're inferring that you are the possessor of the truth and in that superior position. Else, you couldn't judge who had or failed to have it.
And how does that all connect to me self-praising? You simply dont know the truth, concerning the matter of the S.C. shooting. So how am I self-praising by stating the reality, of you being unaware of the truth?
You do a lot of that. I expect you to think you're right, but declarations without argument of that sort don't interest me and so my remark.
I don't know what 'argument' you want from me? A reasoned one? Even if I were able to supply you with reams and reams of reasoning, you still wouldn't understand. For this is not a thing you can understand simply through the facet of reason. I'm sure i've already told you this. I'm sure i've already told you that what you need is
revelation.
Why would one need to reason on a matter, when one has received revelation concerning that matter?
We're taught
By whom?
to conform our understanding to the Word and to test any claim against scripture.
Says who?
You can't do that with revelation that resists reason.
You say my revelation is 'resisting' reason. Is it not your reason that is resisting revelation? Think about that.
Do you admit that there's the possibility of you being wrong, in regard to matter of the shooting incident; as well as other matters?
Not in the above premise. In my particular reason? Here, I can't see how, but I'm open to reason on the point.
You're only open to reason, not revelation... that's true, isn't it?
I haven't heard any so far,
How do you expect me to reason something which can only be revealed? It's like getting a blind person to see what can only be seen with vision; or getting the carnal man to understand that which is spiritual.
'But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' (1 Corinthians 2:14)
only declaration and professions that lay claim to a superior position without proof. Moreover, with profession admitting to the inability to provide it.
The declaration I made, concerning the shooting, is not of a provable nature. I've told you that quite a few times now.
By the way, I'd like to know if you live your life that way? Do you ask for, or demonstrate proof, in your daily life? The last meal that you ate, did you obtain proof that it didn't contain any harmful chemicals, preservatives, and additives? Before you married your wife (if you have one) did you obtain proof that she isn't gonna cheat on you? Likewise, prove that you'll always be faithful to your wife? Prove to me that you had that dream the other night? Where's the proof from your boss that shows he's gonna pay you your next wage? Where's the proof from your church leader that shows he's not misleading you? Et cetera, Et cetera. Many things you accept without proof; yet you don't want to accept what I've said (as a result of revelation) about the S.C. shooting. This is one reason why I say you're obstinate. You imply that you can't accept my revelation without proof; yet there are many things in your day-to-day life which you blindly accept, without any proof whatsoever.
There are all sorts of questions that have yet to be answered. There are things beyond our understanding. But this isn't demonstrably one of them. And questions that can be answered can be examined by and defended with reason.
Reason, reason, reason. How much you seem to idolise reason. If reason itself could reason, I imagine it would be utterly appalled to be placed on the exceedingly high pedestal which its worshippers (of which you seem to be one of them) place it on; and it would perhaps be disgusted by the undue reverence people give it.
...If i'm mistaken, let the error be shown to me.
How? It's an empty invitation given you're resting on a thing you can't prove and feel is superior to the thing that could unseat it.
Errors can always be proven to be wrong. So if there's errors in what I've said, they can surely be proven to be so; or the errors can be at least pointed out. I'm waiting for you to do either of the two, or both.
...I have not proved what I have said - because I can't, and it's not in my power to do so.
Which should lead a reasonable man to question why God would give him a thing without a sign or any other way to set it as proof for the edification of anyone.
What makes you think that God gives revelation to a person just so he can edify others with that revelation? Consider Peter, for example, who received revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. What do you think he was supposed to do with such revelation - use it to edify others? Would they even believe what he said? Would they understand? Would they accept it? No, for 'the carnal man receives not the things of God' (1 Corinthians 2:14). The revelation would have to be revealed to them, just like it was revealed to Peter. Likewise all these things i've been trying to communicate to you, about the wrath of God, must be revealed to you. The fact that you do not accept what I say, shows in itself, that you have not received that revelation.
The obvious answer is that He wouldn't.
You speak for God, do you? How do you know that He wouldn't bestow the gift of revelation, for no other reason except for the benefit/edification of the recipient - not for the edification of others?
But that's what reason is for and how it protects us, as a God given faculty should, if we use it within the context provided us.
The very thing that you say protects you, is also a blockade for you. You are hemming yourself in with reason, on all sides, not allowing yourself to be penetrated with the truth of revelation. You refuse the very thing that would free you from your ignorance. That's a shame, and a pity.
It must be through revelation. Your own eyes must be opened to see this truth. It can't be comprehended by reason.
Said every other man committed to a sanitarium, but no prophet that I know of, since they could all be tested and demonstrate their authority.
Do tell me... how could they be tested, and how would their authority be demonstrated?
With you ironically trying to call me out as proud for not bending knee to your claims of revelation.
You then proceeded to try to cobble that case about pride, without the least appearance of appreciating your irony, by proclaiming me a king in my own eyes and attempting to rest that assumption on another, that I'd carved out a kingdom replete with obligations to defend a self identity, etc.
Is that really not the case - that you're not a king in your own eyes? You may admit that you're not. But what someone says with words is not always a reflection of reality.
Your latest attempt is simply a new term, investment. But it's the same weak sister attempt to do by character attack what you admit to being unable to do rationally.
Character attack? That's a rather strong allegation. Perhaps you should take me court and sue me for libel. And if you do not do so, I'd like to know why.
My answer was given. Invested is the wrong word to my mind, unless you use it in the innocuous manner of someone describing a rewarding experience over time, friendships made, etc. I haven't built a kingdom, I'm fashioned a few relationships I value and earned and given respect to people I often differ with by virtue of how I met them in difference (and vice versa).
Why do you view the word 'invested' as having a negative connotation? Why do you seem ashamed to admit that you have invested time, energy and effort into this website?
'Here's a reasoned response'. It's become quite clear by this statement, and the ones before, that reason itself is what you worship
Apparent to someone who needs to attach to reason a thing that shouldn't attach in order to elevate his own claim to a comparative respectability it cannot otherwise possess.
Tell me, are you not a reason-worshipper? Yes or No? Surely you can answer a simple yes or no question directly. I expect you not to deflect this question.
Why do you lie?
I use my God given reason to read newspapers through self-appointed prophets and judges of men and truth that cannot be measured.
If you say that language is first and foremost, communication (this is what you said in the 'Objectivity thread - which you still have not replied to); then you would frame your sentences, and structure your words in the simplest way possible - to allow the meaning to be clearly understood by the recipient. I think you often fail to do this. Rather, it seems your primary intention is to express yourself, without being considerate of whether the message you deliver is effectively communicated or not. This goes back to what I said in the 'Objectivity' thread, about expression being the primary aim of language. I would say that you surely help to prove my point.
Faith isn't the enemy of reason. Ignorance is the enemy of reason.
You often make objective statements (just as you have done here), as if you know what is actually the truth. As if you are the dictator and definer of truth.
You don't even frame it as your own subjective opinion, by saying, 'I think' or 'I would say that...'. You just put it forth as an objective statement, as if what you say were definitive and truthful. Who or what informed you that ignorance is the enemy of reason? Or are you just merely speculating? If you are just speculating (which very much appears to be the case) then at least have the honesty to admit it.
To you, it [reason] is far above anything else, even God... isn't it?
Of course not.
There are surely many things which you value more than God. Reason may well be one of them. Yes, it very much seems that reason is one of your cherished idols. What are the others? Would you be honest enough to admit them? Do you even know what they are?
Now stand still, I'm nearly at the sports page.
Another instance of where expression has taken priority over communication. If you
really think communication is the most important aspect of language, then you would have at least explained what you have just said; or made the meaning clearer; so that it may be fully understood by the one it is directed towards. What you seem to have made is an ambiguous, personal joke. I wonder, who, but yourself, actually gets it?
