Joined: Sep. 2014
September 12, 2019 at 3:39 am
you obviously have no interest in recognising the hardness of heart principle (which, ironically, respects our collective freedom), and the linked principles that law must be enforceable through significant social consensus, which can move across time due to heart softening and reform. I note this for record, and I point out the implication of the cultural marxism, oppression thesis and clear agenda on your part to impose currently fashionable perversities: such radical revolutionism has a terrible track record of reigns of terror, as the alternative to gradual reform is not waving magic wands, it is revolutionary chaos and reigns of terror.
The Scriptures advocate a different (and repeatedly successful) model: in a world of finite, fallible, morally fallen and struggling, too often hard hearted and ill-willed creatures, one regulates and ameliorates towards reform as men’s hearts are softened and as minds and consciences are soundly informed. In that context, indenture and even enslavement with regulation are survivable (and in extremis, function as a survival safety net of last resort in a world where there is not the wealth base to erect that welfare state that is the silent premise in many arguments on this or similar matters [in short, lack of historically informed economic awareness is part of the problem] . . . something already evident in Genesis with the story of the seven years regional famine — opening up the onward inherent abusiveness seen in Exodus); by contrast a system of ideas and schemes under false colour of law that in 40+ years has managed to so pervert law that we have a genocide of living posterity in the womb that mounts up at a million further victims per week (and 800+ millions since the ’70’s) manifestly marks a demonically dark, bloodily destructive age. Where in the past 100 or so years, just counting the already born, radical revolutionary terrors have murdered over 100 millions.
That is the record of history.
Given that effective choice, the prudent person will heed the counsel of Paul in Philemon every time, instead of listening to the rhetoric of the heirs of Robespierre.
Second, as we have long since corrected your obsessions with sliding into the sewer, we simply note the fact of your obvious, ruinous agenda. Already, we can see the revolutionary chaos and confusion it is opening up. Not even little girls going to the bathroom are safe. That is a foreshadowing of what is to come if such radicalism prevails again.
Finally, it is obvious in this light that you are insistent on an agenda that refuses to attend to what the OP raises. Why is that?
Because, the moral principles of the Bible stand in the way of where you and your ilk want to take our civilisation: Nero-666-Rom 1 chaos. So, you will bend every rhetorical sinew, wrench scripture heedless of any balance or correction, dismiss the actual demonstrated heritage of contribution to reform and freedom in a race to Sodom on the Tiber, or the Hudson, or the Thames or the Seine, or the Hope, or whatever other place.
We simply note the demonic chaos you would heedlessly set loose, and recognise it for what it is.
In answer, we start yet again from basics: even your implicit attempt to persuade us that we OUGHT to dismiss the Christian Faith and its Scriptures pivots on our intellectual life being morally governed in a world that is morally founded.
No worldviews are viable that do not successfully bridge the IS-OUGHT gap at world root level.
This, specifically, includes evolutionary materialism as was exposed 2350+ years ago by Plato, as the OP highlights . . . and which, of course you predictably studiously ignore in haste to try to discredit what you oppose.
Thus, there must be a root to the world adequate to sustain creatures inescapably morally governed by duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so, warrant and so reform rather than chaos], sound conscience, justice etc.
(Where, duty to justice, duly enlightened, is precisely the pivot used by Paul in addressing oppressive inequalities in Philemon. But so blind are you that you refuse to register or respond with due regard to what we are dealing with in this short epistle. The charter of human freedom in our civilisation, the original — but too often unrecognised — charter of civil rights. With a proved track record, twice, of opening up culture transforming reformation. That is how it is no accident, that the motto of the Antislavery Society comes from this text. It is that unyielding, blind, ruthless, radical unreasonableness and unresponsiveness on your part that is utterly telling and it is duly noted. Where, we also point to a text in the infographic in the OP that highlights: “1 Cor 7:20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a bondservant[d] when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)” The implications are obvious . . . so obvious that the slaves who rose up in the 1831 Baptist War in Jamaica pointed out that they could see it for themselves . . . and even though the dissenter missionaries opposed ill-advised uprisings through the prudence advocated here [they hoped that reform would come from London where fellow dissenters were in the vanguard of abolitionism], and that those trying to use “you fundies support slavery” [yes, we can read subtext, thank you] as a rhetorical club repeatedly ignore this text jointly speak volumes on their wanton disregard for truth, prudence — directly counselled in the text! — and fair mindedness. All of which are big, bright red flags.)
We can cut to the chase scene: there is precisely one serious necessary being world-root option that answers to the IS-OUGHT gap: the inherently good, utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible, honourable service of doing the good that accords with our manifest nature. I freely say this after years of the unanswered comparative difficulties challenge to provide another alternative under comparative difficulties: ___ (I predict, on that track record, that you will yet again seek to evade this while rhetorically sitting in God’s lap to try to strike his face.)
Until you provide a serious root for morality independent of God, we need not take attempts to argue against God, theism and linked traditions seriously. They become parasitical attempts to saw off the branch on which we all must sit. Or, to poison the well we all must drink from. Manifestations of potentially ruinous misanthropy.
Now, we can go further, noting that the pivot of the Judaeo Christian tradition of ethical theism is the gospel, in the context of the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Hebraic Scriptures. In the words of St Peter, on the eve of being crucified by the demonic, perverted mad man and dictator for life, Nero, on a manifestly false charge of being ringleader of treasonous arson against Rome [and in order to deflect suspicions that pointed fingers to Nero due to his increasingly obvious chaotic tendencies], we hear:
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty . . .
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(Those interested in seriously examining the underlying facts are invited to go here on.)
Can someone please translate for me.