Like I said, if you want to minimize God to being unable to teach or combat sociocultural and technological barriers then you can be consistent in your view. However that reduces God to being functionally non existant since our advancements in moral instruction then rely on the human driven force.

"life on earth is just a test to gain eternal salvation" - God

"why do you support slavery if you're a loving god" - Neckbeards



you say unable to change, and yet the doctrine changes, and the context is refined. so im a bit confused as to just what the fuck you're even blabbering about. you're bringing up teachings that haven't been interpreted or taught the way you're interpreting them in mainstream Christianity for centuries. as icemage stated the passage should instruct that master and slave are both subservient to god.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 13 2018 11:14am

This suggests the word of god is imperfect, since it needs to be constantly amended to keep up with human advances

If god was inherently against slavery (in line with our moral code) surely he would have made it a commandment not to practice it? Since when has the abrahamic god cared about whether an undesirable practice is ‘the norm’ in society at the time?

im far from an absolutist in the infallability of god. so you may be teeing up a slew of strawmans, just fair warning.

to me god's word is a slide rule that constantly needs moving based on many things. a child born in the year 2000 isn't responsible for the societal norms that dictate their life, so why would god hold them to the same standard as a child born into a 1700's quaker closed off community? of course god's word is imperfect, it's is instruction for men, who are imperfect.

It changes, and is refined, but as far as we can see God has nothing to do with it.

We've identified many mechanisms by which society progresses, and religion tends to follow those mechanisms, not the other way around. You're inserting a God when one isn't needed.

Still, you don't believe in the infallibility of God, you don't believe he is capable of elevating humans by any means other than their elevation of themselves, etc. etc.

It's pretty clear the way you defend your beliefs from cognitive dissonance is by constantly watering down what God can and can't do.

He's saying they are on the same level in the eyes of the lord, but that does not imply their relationships on Earth should be of equals.

In fact, the Bible explicitly refutes that in pretty much every other passage about slavery. Instead the justification in Ephesians is that even though you will be rewarded for service in heaven, you should maintain your relationship as it stands on Earth regardless of how well your master treats you.

i don't know what i don't know. your assertion of what god can and can't do and how he can and can't do it is about as close to offended as i get. not religiously offended, logically. a man who can create all that is in existence is bound by what exactly? what you observe in history with how religion conforms to society? that's worth a hearty laugh from me man. bravo.

the simple idea, believe in it or not, of religious inspiration counters your assertion logically. you don't have to understand the mechanisms of something to observe a phenomena. i dont understand how god applies his own invisible influence or even if he does, but logically for a man who has magic at his fingertips it's not even hard to believe.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Dec 13 2018 11:27am

I mean, if your beliefs are basically

"God is somewhere, does things by mechanisms that are indistinguishable from him not acting at all, hands down moral codes based on the moral codes that already exist in that society, and "inspires" change whenever I think it's convenient that he inspired it even though I have no reason to believe that"

Then your beliefs are functionally identical to atheists. It would be the same if we called it God, or invisible unmeasurable non-interacting pixies.

That naturally undermines the institution though... if God views everyone as equals, the hierarchies developed by humans on Earth become less meaningful.

This is just a continuation of what Jesus taught. "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

If Jesus wouldn't resist his master, why would you expect Paul to tell others to?

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 13 2018 11:33am

I dont expect Jesus to resist his master, he made it clear slavery is fine.