Religions?

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

18 minutes ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

It was a quote on...9gag I think. Somone was answering another person challenging their cristian views.

 

6 minutes ago, Extesian said:

Hmm there was a philosophy of Aristotle about slavery being the natural state for some people, to say that it is better for some people who don't have the ability to reason properly (their 'souls' are sufficiently different from 'normal' humans) to be slaves. That's their natural state. But that for 'normal' humans slavery is not natural and shouldn't be enforced only by law or strength. It was a way to protect normal Greek citizens from slavery but justify 'barbarians' being made slaves. It's been confused sometimes with a Biblical verse.

Not sure if that's what you're thinking of?

That sounds plausible. Mind you, i haven't studied Aristotle, so I have nothing to base that feeling off of besides the fact that I cannot recall ever reading a verse that said something like that, and that I could find no verse of the sort in my search. 

And 9gag is not a reliable source for information on any religion or philosophy.

[Darkness Ascendant]

10 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said:

And 9gag is not a reliable source for information on any religion or philosophy.

heh true, but it was interesting I remember.

19 minutes ago, Extesian said:

Hmm there was a philosophy of Aristotle about slavery being the natural state for some people, to say that it is better for some people who don't have the ability to reason properly (their 'souls' are sufficiently different from 'normal' humans) to be slaves. That's their natural state. But that for 'normal' humans slavery is not natural and shouldn't be enforced only by law or strength. It was a way to protect normal Greek citizens from slavery but justify 'barbarians' being made slaves. It's been confused sometimes with a Biblical verse.

Not sure if that's what you're thinking of?

Hmm I think perhaps it means us being the slaves of God.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles]

3 minutes ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

Hmm I think perhaps it means us being the slaves of God.

If you mean that in the context of Aristotle's quote, then that can't be the case, as Aristotle was a member of the polytheistic Greek culture, well before the birth of Christ. He might have been familiar with the concept of monotheism (though I don't think he was) but it would have been a very foreign concept to him. 

If you mean the original 9gag quote, then it could be referring to Titus 1:1.

Quote

Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness

That verse, however, was originally a letter from Paul to a man named Titus, addressing theological concerns. Paul sometimes referred to himself as "a bondservant of Christ;" a bondservant was a slave who, after being offered freedom, chose to remain the servant of their master. So, in referring to himself that way, Paul is saying that he has chosen to serve God for the rest of his life. He also addressed his fellow Christians as "bondservants of Jesus Christ," which was, again, a way of reminding them of their choice to serve God, using language rooted in and familiar to the culture of the time. The intended image is not of man's natural state being one of slavery, but of a person who could be doing anything else with their life and has chosen to serve God. 

[Silverblade5]

@Erunion, Could you way in on this?

[Erunion]

@Silverblade5 - Sure! 
The Bible does not say that slavery is a natural state of man. 
The Bible does say that we are slaves to our sinful natures, a slavery from which we can freed through Christ. 
In the Israelite economy, slave == employee - you hired yourself out for a set period of time. Slaves were to be freed every 7 years (I think. Slaves every 7 years, land returned every 50 years?). So you would 'sell' yourself until the next year of Jubilee, with the price being determined by how close to that year you were. 
There were strict rules regarding the treatment of these 'slaves'. 
Keep in mind, all of Israel were to be landholders and to have their own, ancestral, tribal lands. So if your farm failed, you would hire yourself out until you had enough money to restart it. That's also why land returned after 50 years, you could only sell your homestead for that length of time, after which it would return to you or your next of kin if you were dead. 
Much of the prophetic work in the Old Testament was lambasting the Israeli upper-class for its treatment of the poor, and specifically for failing to treat 'slaves' (employees) properly. That, and idolatry, were the two crimes that are repeatedly mentioned when God is punishing the Nation of Israel (remember, God made a covenant with Israel - you follow my rules, and I will prosper your nation. They didn't follow the rules, and God punished them. Lots of little punishments; hoping for repentance. Eventually He went with a severe punishment - the exile to Assyria for the North and Babylon for the South, but always with an eye to them repenting and returning to their homeland. Understanding this will go a long way towards helping you understand the Israeli mindset even today, although @Deliiiiiightful will know a lot more about that than me). 

The New Testament says very little on the ethics of slavery. However, it says a lot on the ethics of the being a master and being a slave (/employee! While Roman slavery is much closer than Jewish slavery to the modern conception of slavery, it is still far different from 17th-19th century plantation slavery. Slaves often outnumbered Citizens in cities, and were basically considered employees). It also has significant underlying themes that caused the abolition movement (the bulk of abolitionists in the 18th/19th centuries who eventually ended slavery in the West were devout Christians, often clergymen. Look at John Newton and William Wilberforce for example). 
Firstly on what it says explicitly: Slaves(/employees/bond servants) were to remain within the law, and generally behave in an exemplary manner. Many, if not most, Christians in the early Roman world were slaves. They were asked to perform their duties as to the Lord, and not as to men. They were also strongly encouraged to earn their freedom through the conventional means, if at all possible (remember, 'no man can serve two masters'). At least two early popes were slaves who had either been freed or had earned their freedom. . 
Masters, on the other hand, were commanded to treat their slaves well. Most telling is the letter to Philemon, a slave-owner, about Onesimus, a slave of his who had run away, met Paul, and converted to Christianity. Paul was sending Onesimus back to Philemon, while carrying the letter. In that letter, Paul asks Philemon to treat Onesiums as Philemon would treat Paul himself - as a beloved brother. He also says that he will repay any damages incurred, and strongly hints that Philemon should release Onesimus. 
Church tradition holds that Philemon did manumit Onesimus, and that the two became extremely close friends. 
Crucially as well, there was and is no distinction in church services or standing. In Christ there is neither 'slave nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Gentile' - all are to be equal. The slave is supposed to sit beside the king in church, and to live as equal to him in life. 
Paul wrote several strongly worded letters to new christian groups who were showing prejudice, esp. ethnic prejudice and class prejudice. 

Onto more theoretical stuff: the way Christ orders us to treat each other completely excludes slavery, in its modern sense, and discourages slavery in its classical sense. We are commanded to be humble, to help one another, to 'turn the other cheek', to be generous, compassionate, kind, patient and on and on and on. Scripture teaches that people are made in the image of God, and that they are inherently free, valuable and equal one to the other, that we are to love our neighbours (with neighbours being shown to mean anyone you come into contact with), treat others as better than ourselves and so much more. 
This is completely incompatible with slavery (as we think of it). You do not put your brother in chains. The slave is your brother. Its as simple as that. 
It is compatible only with the mildest of ancient/classical slavery - that is, paying someone to work for you for a set amount of time. But during that time, you are still to treat them as your brother, as better than yourself. 


Honestly, there's a lot more to be said on this, but it would take me doing more research and readings and I just don't have time right now. Too much school. 
(For the record, I googled, like, two things briefly, and re-read the letter to Philemon while writing this post. The rest is from memory. All errors are thus mine). 


Also, I'm touched that you asked my opinion on this @Silverblade5 - practically blushing. I hope I was helpful, and I'm glad you think so highly of my opinion on these things! 
(I'm generally a sarcastic person - that response was NOT sarcastic. I am really touched)

Edited March 5, 2017 by Erunion

[Darkness Ascendant]

That was really...enlightening @Erunion

 

[Erunion]

3 minutes ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

That was really...enlightening @Erunion

 

I'm glad! In what way? 

[Darkness Ascendant]

51 minutes ago, Erunion said:

I'm glad! In what way? 

the whole slavery thing, didn't know about those rules.

(and I was making a pun )

[AliasSheep]

8 hours ago, Silverblade5 said:

I am confused by this statement. Could you please explain what you mean? If you're trying to express a problem with my post, could you identify which part is problematic so I can either fix it or try to clarify?

It's a communist symbol.  The joke was that your defense of indentured servitude is a common argument against employment in socialist thought.

[Delightful]

Disclaimer, I just skimmed through that last couple pages cause I couldn't be bothered reading in depth right now.

 

On 3 March 2017 at 10:15 PM, Erunion said:

There's a world of difference between 'appearing as' and being. God is said to have 'appeared to [Moses]' (exodus 3) in the burning bush. God did not say 'I am a burning bush'. Same with the cloud, and the pillar of fire/etc. 

^agreed. G-D doesn't have a physical form. 

On 3 March 2017 at 10:35 PM, Orlion Determined said:

God also didn't say he wasn't any of those things. Maybe you should quit putting implications in God's mouth

God can be whatever it wants to be, provided it is omnipotent. If not, how can an omnipresent god be a localized physical (and mortal) being like Jesus? How is Jesus being God and not just God appearing as Jesus?

I think you're getting into "can G-D create a weight He can't lift" territory.

On 5 March 2017 at 1:42 AM, Silverblade5 said:

@Deliiiiiightful@Darkness Ascendant

Actually, I think the bible is pretty clear on slavery. The eighth commandment, which is given in Exodus, and is therefore acknowledged by Christianity, Judaism, and I believe Islam, is to not steal. Slavery is the theft of one's freedom, dignity, the fruits of one's labor, and often the theft of life, which is murder, and violates another commandment. Therefore, I'm pretty sure the bible is explicitly against slavery. What's depicted in the bible as OK, and is often called slavery by the masses, is generally forms of indentured servitude. This is OK because it's a donation, not theft. The indentured servant is consenting to giving their time, freedom, labor, and the results of their labor to a master.

True its an indentured servant but

a) the rules are different for Jewish 'slaves' and non-Jewish 'slaves'

 Things like if a slave is married while in service, and then he leaves, he has to leave his wife and children behind. Because.....they belong to the master and aren't like actually his family for keepsies?

c) child labour. A girl has to be released from service or married when she hits puberty to avoid rape etc. Which means she was working as a child. And yes 10 year old used to work in coal mines and as chimney sweeps but......still bothers.

On 5 March 2017 at 4:22 AM, Darkness Ascendant said:

It was a quote on...9gag I think. Somone was answering another person challenging their cristian views.

 

On 5 March 2017 at 4:34 AM, Extesian said:

Hmm there was a philosophy of Aristotle about slavery being the natural state for some people, to say that it is better for some people who don't have the ability to reason properly (their 'souls' are sufficiently different from 'normal' humans) to be slaves. That's their natural state. But that for 'normal' humans slavery is not natural and shouldn't be enforced only by law or strength. It was a way to protect normal Greek citizens from slavery but justify 'barbarians' being made slaves. It's been confused sometimes with a Biblical verse.

Not sure if that's what you're thinking of?

Sounds like Loki  

[Darkness Ascendant]

[Delightful]

I am all on board for kitten planet!

 

Edit:.......I smell a sci-fi out of that.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Delightful

[Mestiv]

Kitten planet sounds great, just don't give them alarm clocks

[Delightful]

8 minutes ago, Mestiv said:

Kitten planet sounds great, just don't give them alarm clocks

.....why?

[Mestiv]

6 minutes ago, Delightful said:

.....why?

They will drop them on people, hurting their noses  or even worse they'll just hurt themselves!

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by Mestiv

[Delightful]

Just now, Mestiv said:

They will drop them on people, hurting their noses

 

oh right LOL. Guess that makes me a bad friend for forgetting your trauma so easily.

[Mestiv]

1 minute ago, Delightful said:

oh right LOL. Guess that makes me a bad friend for forgetting your trauma so easily.

I am offend! but I guess I can forgive

[Delightful]

1 minute ago, Mestiv said:

I am offend! but I guess I can forgive

Yay! Friends!

[Darkness Ascendant]

You guys need to watch Rick and Morty. Right now.

[Erunion]

26 minutes ago, Darkness Ascendant said:

You guys need to watch Rick and Morty. Right now.

It's on a list. A loooong list. But it's up there. Near the top, actually. 



However, as a Christian and a History geek, I feel I must answer some of that comic you posted; on the whole though I definitely can see God facepalming a lot at what we do to each other. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment (Mark 12) was he said unequivocally that it was to love the lord your God, but he immediately followed it with 'love your neighbor as yourself'. We (the religious community), like most humans, find both of these to be terribly difficult standards to uphold so we like to pretend we're doing as we ought by following other, less important strictures. This often leads to Pride, a hard, judgmental attitude, a skewed perspective of morality and, indeed, of reality. Uncle Screwtape would be Proud.
(Seriously, you guys, C.S. Lewis is brilliant. I recently purchased a collection of his signature classics. One of my top 10 purchases ever. Fantastic reads, highly recommend). 

Anyway, that was a rabbit trail. 
If you posit that the Bible was/is divinely inspired (an assumption I make based on certain evidences, but also on my own faith), then you must expect it to be timeless. As God (assuming the standard conception of the Judeo-Christian God) exists outside of time, then too anything he directly inspired would contain truth that is unaffected by time, hence why so many Christian's take the Bible so seriously (and why so many Jews take the Torah so seriously). It, like God, is the same yesterday, today and forever. 

That being said, what you'll find when a Christian is attacking another person for that persons behaviour (however 'sinful'), they are behaving contrary to the express command of Christ. We are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves. Commanded. Not to be nice to people, or to be helpful, or to just get along with them, but to LOVE them. 
If a Christian's behaviour towards another is not loving, then that Christian is disobeying a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith.
That being said, I personally break this almost daily. It is, quite intentionally, an impossible standard for an unaided and imperfect human to achieve - this is why God promises to help us towards it in this life, and to perfect us in the next. 

Also an important addendum, I don't have to agree with you to love you. In fact, if I see you doing something which I believe to be harmful to you, my love ought to compel me to act to correct that, as I would correct my brother or my friend. But, as with my brother or my friend, the correction must only be honest, loving and forthright. And it cannot be through compulsion, or else what good is it? God cares for the heart. If I compel you to obey my own standards, whether or not those standards are better or right is irrelevant (as long as you're not harming others, anyway) - if you are compelled then your heart remains unchanged and I have done no good, and perhaps a great deal of ill.
Unfortunately, many of us take it upon ourselves to compel others to obey our own moral standards (which tend to bear a passing resemblance to God's, but are not truly His, only crude facsimiles). This is a tragic, deplorable and distressingly common practice. 


tl;dr - If God is constant then so too is His word. Thus respecting the Bible is paramount to the believer. However, Christian's are commanded to love our neighbor (that's you! And you! And you!). If our behavior isn't loving, then we're not doing as we ought and God will quite rightly facepalm at us, as he tries to steer us back to his path of love.

[Tristan]

I definitely respect religious people--most of my family is religious and I was raised Christian--but this is kind of why I became an atheist. Personally, I don't think it's necessary to love everybody, but I will always help and connect with a fellow human when I'm able to (and plants and animals, for that matter--I'm the crazy person who saves the spider in the house instead of killing it). I just strive to be what I consider a good person, and let other people worry about what's considered good and bad. I'd probably make a good Christian again, but I just really, really can't force myself to believe there's a god out there, and I hear that's kind of a big part of it. Lol

I do respect people of faith, however, and I don't mean to offend anyone!

[Riversong]

I'm a Mormon. It's a bit weird, though. I don't dress like most Mormons do. Not immodest or anything, I just prefer dark, subdued colors to the vibrant hues preferred by my peers. That's actually gotten me a fair bit of ostracism, but I figure if someone really matters they'll look beyond my favoured colors.

[The Honor Spren]

32 minutes ago, Riversong said:

I'm a Mormon. It's a bit weird, though. I don't dress like most Mormons do. Not immodest or anything, I just prefer dark, subdued colors to the vibrant hues preferred by my peers. That's actually gotten me a fair bit of ostracism, but I figure if someone really matters they'll look beyond my favoured colors.

That's ridiculous. No one should be judged by their favorite colors of all things. There is definitely a stereotypical "Mormon look," but as long as your clothes are modest, it shouldn't matter how you dress. Whether you wear a black hoodie and jeans or purple pig tails with rainbow socks, (I've done both) just dress for your self, not for your peers.  

[Riversong]

Thank you. It's nice to be in a community where everyone is so accepting.

[Darkness Ascendant]

2 hours ago, The Honor Spren said:

That's ridiculous. No one should be judged by their favorite colors of all things. There is definitely a stereotypical "Mormon look," but as long as your clothes are modest, it shouldn't matter how you dress. Whether you wear a black hoodie and jeans or purple pig tails with rainbow socks, (I've done both) just dress for your self, not for your peers.  

you got pics of those purple pig tails?