Paul gets bashed sometimes by modern Western types for not denouncing slavery and trying to launch an abolitionist crusade; but if he’d tried, he would only have made things worse. He would have suddenly been taken far more seriously by the Romans as a troublemaker (and most likely executed as a result), Christians throughout the empire would have abruptly been treated with far greater suspicion and hostility, people who already didn’t like Christians would probably have been roused to defend slavery . . . and all in all, the gradual drift of Roman society away from slavery would probably have been reversed somewhat, not speeded up. He was simply too outnumbered and outgunned for a frontal assault to work.In the letter to Philemon, though, we can see how Paul sought to work against slavery in and through the church. He wrote the letter as an amicus domini—a “friend of the master” interceding on behalf of a fugitive slave, in this case Onesimus—and took full advantage of the opportunity as a teachable moment. The keynote of the letter comes in verses 15-16, where he writes, “Perhaps Onesimus was separated from you for a little while.” Note that. He doesn’t say, “Perhaps Onesimus separated himself from you”; he says, “perhaps he was separated.” That’s what’s called the “divine passive,” and you’ll find it all over the Old Testament. The Jews were so careful about not taking God’s name in vain that they avoided using it whenever possible; and so if they wanted to say God did something, they would often write, “It happened.” That’s the divine passive, and that’s what we have here: Paul is gently suggesting to Philemon that it wasn’t Onesimus who did this—it was God.To what purpose? Onesimus’ salvation, for one; more than that, a major change in his relationship with Philemon as a result. We cannot know how Philemon treated his slaves, though given his position in the church one would hope he treated them well; but it seems likely that he treated them, and thought of them, as slaves—people, yes, but definitely second-class, second-tier. Now Paul is saying, perhaps God was at work here so that Onesimus might be saved and Philemon might have him back “no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother” in Christ, a fellow Christian. This is the keynote to everything Paul says in this letter, to his appeal to Philemon to welcome Onesimus back rather than punishing him and all the rest of it: Philemon, this man isn’t just your slave anymore, he’s your brother in Christ; I led him to Christ just as I led you to Christ, and you can’t look at him the same way as you used to. In the world, you own him and he’s your inferior; in the church, Jesus owns both of you, and Onesimus is your equal.This is how the church gradually ended slavery in the ancient world; slaves became members of the church alongside freemen and citizens, and they became elders, and they became pastors, and some even became bishops. About forty years after this letter was written, one Onesimus became bishop of Ephesus; we don’t know if it was the same one or not, but personally, I think it was. And the more people saw slaves as their equals, and sometimes even their betters, the less supportable slavery became, until eventually the Emperor Justinian ended it altogether.Everywhere this dynamic has been allowed to work (rather than being undermined and suppressed by the church itself, as one must admit has happened all too often), everywhere that Christians have learned to see one another first and foremost as people whom God loves, for whom Jesus died, all the distinctions that we use to say this person is better or more important or more valuable than that one have tended to fade away. That’s why Paul could tell the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”; and we could add, there is neither rich nor poor, black nor white nor Hispanic nor Asian nor American Indian, Republican nor Democrat nor independent, American nor foreigner, not because these divisions don’t exist but because they aren’t what really matters. Jesus is for everyone, and loves everyone equally—that’s what matters in the end. Everything else is just details. Everything else.
more evidence of your extremist religious beliefs… you ought to be ashamed of yourself…
[/sarcasm]
Ignoring the caustic sting of your minion, I thought the post was well thought out and enjoyable to read.
I have no minions. (Not online, anyway.) I’m glad you appreciated the post, though.
If you don’t like it, Archie, you shouldn’t leave yourself open to it.
Vanderei,
Hmm, here were my first impressions with regards to this blog:
1) Pro-Life
2) Pro-War (-cough- hypocrisy)
3) If you aren’t a conservative, you are a vandal (determined to undermine civilization and order).
4) Global Warming is a fallacy perpetuated by scientists seeking grant money.
5) Barack is a bad man, will not be able to conduct an effective foreign policy because of his color, and perpetuating the erroneous notion that Barack is a nomadic muslim.
And all of this wrapped in between religious discussions. I think that pretty much makes a good case for my religious extremist comment don’t you think?
Rob,
I am sure you read my last comment and wonder why I come to your blog? Well, first of all, I was linked to it from CNN.com (honest), and despite my head shaking at some of your articles, I get the sense that there is a man here trying to balance his strong sense of: patriotism, hearth and religion with the political ideals of lesser people.
Your extensive research and dedication to this blog would seem to me that you are intellectually open to outside influences, or at least appear to be. Something that I had not believed possible at first read. So I keep coming back….
If this is an erroneous assumption on my part, please do not hesitate to let me know and I will move on peacefully. If it is correct, then you can expect further dialog.
Regards.
Re: your impressions:
1) Yes.
2) No. I am, however, a believer in just-war theory, and I trust that you will be equally open to learning why that is not in fact hypocritical. (Note: that’s not the same as expecting you to come to agree with my position.)
3) Nope. That makes me think that you just don’t read very carefully; you should note my response to Doug’s comment in this thread.
4) Not precisely. I do think there are some who are in it for exactly that reason, but clearly there are a considerable number on the other side for that same reason as well. Again, you’re not reading very carefully.
5) Wrong again. More sloppy reading on your part. I don’t think he’s a bad man, though I’ve been deeply disappointed to conclude that he’s much less of a good one than I had first thought and hoped. I never said that he “will not be able to conduct an effective foreign policy because of his color”; what I said was that his color won’t be the asset that some people were uncritically assuming it would be. And, to complete the troika, I never said he’s a Muslim; I have, rather, spent a fair bit of time talking about the church and pastor who brought him to Christ. I have, however, talked about the fact that under the usual Muslim understanding, he was a Muslim and is therefore now an apostate, which fact will complicate his life (and presidency) if he wins in November.
Oh, and also: there are no lesser people. There are people with whom I disagree, and people whom I believe are choosing the lesser than the greater, but when it comes to intrinsic value, there are no lesser people. The attempt of some to dismiss the severely disabled and the unborn as lesser people (or non-people) is, imho, the greatest evil in our body politic; to allow that sort of thinking to be applied to any other person or group would only be to multiply the ill.
As such, I can’t speak for other people, but no, I don’t think you have any sort of case. As it happens, I know full well that you got here from CNN; my only complaint has been your evident tendency to react first and read later (which has, at least, produced a certain degree of mellowing from your initial inflammatory statements). You’re certainly welcome to keep arguing, assuming your willingness to do so respectfully, as long as you’re as open to changing your mind as you expect others to be.
Oh, and Vanderei: despite my own (sometimes ill-concealed) tendency to snark, I don’t really think sniping helps.
Rob,
I seem to take these threads off topic, but please forgive me for continuing that trend.
1)I am generally Pro-Life (the casual use of this process as a form of birth control sickens me). However, the world is full of grays, and I find myself stuck in the hypocrisy of that statement like so many others.
2)There is no such thing as a just war. There are reasons to go to war (i.e. Pearl Harbor, World Trade Center), but fabricating intelligence to start a war is reprehensible (Cheney and Rumsfeld most assuredly have a place in Hell reserved for them). I am pro-troops, and true to my comment above, I am pro-life with regards to the innocents caught in the middle. In one of your posts you seem befuddled that successes in Iraq never make the papers; consider me similarly befuddled by the lack of coverage regarding the massive death toll suffered by the Iraq and Afghan people. I weep for all of the dead, not just the American.
3)I read your response to Doug, but you seemed to miss the fact that Doug and I had the exact same reaction to your initial post.
4)There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, and I would encourage you to reread the articles to which you referenced in your post. While my recap was entirely too succinct, it was correct in its assertion.
5)Again, my recap may fail to capture many of the finely woven points of your posts, it is however, correct.
The fact that all of this bothers you, perhaps even offends you, is precisely why I am here. This blog needs a left-leaning conscience and I have elected myself.
There are no lesser people? Aye, I regret my choice of words, but the intent of the comment I stand by. Let’s rephrase that to say people of lesser moral fiber.
My position has mellowed considerably, but only because I have had time to read more of the blog instead of just the inflammatory ones. Point in case, look at the titles of your posts today….
Writing to inflame people, and then claiming that they have reading comprehension issues is absurd Rob. Perhaps you can get away with that line with other people, but not me.
Posting with my blogger id, so feel free to call me Rick.
Regards all.
1) I don’t believe there’s any hypocrisy in that statement whatsoever.
2) You’re welcome to your opinion. You’re not welcome to expect others to share it. And as for the death toll of Iraqis, I stand by my statement that fewer have died than Saddam would have killed in this period.
As for fabricating evidence: prove it.
3) Yes, I realize that your reaction was similar to Doug’s. That was the purpose of my comment: to clarify.
4) No, actually, the thrust is primarily that global warming is a fallacy perpetrated by scientists with a political agenda.
5) No, your “recap” is completely wrongheaded, as it amounts to three statements which I’ve never made and which in fact I’ve explicitly contradicted.
I’m not offended in the slightest; I am, however, bothered by your persistent misunderstandings and misrepresentations. That concern, of course, is purely practical, procedural and pedantic. That said, your statement that “This blog needs a left-leaning conscience and I have elected myself” is almost sublime in its arrogance and condescension; you are more and more appearing to be that creature of American politics for which I have the least respect: someone who believes that no one can ever disagree with you out of good motives.
y'know, you're way too gentle with this joker… how dim do you have to be to read "My friends ask what makes me a conservative, and sometimes I wonder myself, but there is an answer, and it’s that I hate vandals." & think, that means, therefore, if you aren't conservative you're a vandal? that is most definitely _not_ the same as doug hagler's reaction–he simply said, "funny, i'm a liberal for the exact same reason"–something your quote didn't by any means rule out… this guy doesn't have a comprehension problem, he has an assumption problem–he assumes that since you're conservative, he knows what you mean, & so he reads what he expects, not what you actually write… that's how he can accuse you of saying stuff you didn't say, 'cuz _in his head_, you did…
1) What I should have said is that there are gray areas where I believe that abortion would be acceptable to me. Examples such as the rape of a child, where the fetus risks the life of the mother, and other such dismal situations. Life is life, and allowing exceptions is hypocrisy – and that is where I sit.
2) If it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt they would hanging from the gallows in The Hague. There is substantial evidence and books stating quite plainly that “the intelligence was wrapped around the policy”. If you would like a list, please let me know, I will gladly provide it in abundance.
3)Dead issue.
4)Okay, I concede the point, my sentence should have read that your posts purported that Global Warming is the fallacy based on scientists with a political agenda. Now that we have cleared up the semantics, the assertion that I was trying to make still remains.
5)
My comment: Nomadic Muslim
1. You declared that he could be considered a Muslim under traditional Muslim perceptions (I hope I got that right), and that he was now clearly a Christian. As Obama has stated repeatedly, he was never ever a Muslim and applying any standard beyond his personal beliefs is simply wrong. Something you quite clearly did.
2. You declared that Obama because of his upbringing really had no home. I don’t disagree with you.
Barack is a bad man. And if I can add, Barack is a bad man, who has problems with women.
1. Okay, my comment was intentionally broad to encompass the number of comments that you have made. I don’t care to repeat them, but while you are correct that this is not a quote, it is a correct summation of numerous comments made in these posts.
Barack will not be able to conduct an effective foreign policy because of his color is simply a different way of saying:
“What’s somewhat questionable is the underlying assumption here that anti-black racism is only an American problem. That’s simply not the case: anti-black racism is in fact a significant problem in many of the countries who pose us the biggest challenges, including China and much of the Muslim world, in which slavery of black Africans was never forbidden and continues to be practiced. As such, in dealing with countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, or with the Israel-Palestine conflict, Sen. Obama could actually find his African heritage a disadvantage. That said, it should also be noted that his heritage should be an asset for him in dealing with sub-Saharan Africa, where the US is already generally popular thanks to Bush Administration policies and which should assume increasing significance for American policy going forward.”
“There’s another issue as well for Sen. Obama in dealing with the Muslim world, this one potentially more serious: whether he considers himself that he was ever a Muslim, on Muslim terms, he was, and he clearly isn’t now (regardless of what some people might like to tell you, he’s definitely a practicing Christian), which makes him an apostate, a murtad. As longtime student of the Muslim world Daniel Pipes points out, that’s no small issue. Technically, this would make him subject to religious-based assassination, though it seems probable that prudence would prevail over any such impulse; but as the Christian Science Monitor realized, for the US to elect an apostate Muslim to the White House would be a huge propaganda windfall for al’Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. That, obviously, would create major foreign-policy challenges for an Obama administration.”
Did you not just refer to Obama as an “apostate Muslim” in that article? Oh my, seems that my reading comprehension skills are working just fine.
I am a product of American politics?! You, who wrap these inflammatory innuendos with religious dialog is somehow superior and less arrogant? I am fairly confident that you aren’t nearly that oblivious to either your motives or processes.
Vanderei,
This issue is dead at this point, but let me summarize this for you.
My point, on first read, it appeared that Rob’s post stated (I am paraphrasing here) that he was a conservative because he hated vandals. I found that comment fairly myopic.
Rob’s comments acknowledge the misunderstanding, but pointed to a correction he made in response to Dan, who had a similar reaction as I.
(Rob, jump in if I got that wrong.)
But the point of my post was first read vs further investigation. I do not think anyone here doubts that this sentence isn’t inflammatory taken without the comments. But in all fairness, I certainly wouldn’t consider it inflammatory with the comments added.
So, as a “first read” example to justify my extremist comment, I would have to say that it pretty much supports the initial knee-jerk reaction. With that said, further involvement with this blog has definitely lessened the sharp corners of my initial impression.
Nevertheless, my views are substantially different than many posted here. Outside of my religious elitist comment, I have been polite and engaging. It would appear to me that my mere presence inflames you based on your posts. That can not be helped, but hopefully, this note will clarify the point for you.
Regards.
1) I don’t think “hypocrisy” is the appropriate label there.
2) I’d be interested to see if you have any evidence that actually qualifies as evidence.
3) “Dead issue” I presume is your way of saying, “Oops, I misread you”?
4) As does the assertion I’m making: that catastrophic global warming as a result of human CO2 production isn’t happening. You have to prove me wrong before you can use that position as evidence against me.
5) Actually, he’s modified his statements to say that he was never an observant Muslim. I have no doubt that he does not consider himself to be or ever to have been in any meaningful sense a Muslim. As I explicitly said, that’s not the issue. The issue is, how do al’Qaeda and other jihadist groups see him? They will be able to build propaganda off the argument that he was a Muslim and is now apostate.
To your assertion that this amounts to saying that “Barack will not be able to conduct an effective foreign policy because of his color,” three problems. First, as regards his color, I did not say that it would keep him from conducting an effective foreign policy; what I said was that the facile assumption of the John Kerrys of the world that it would be an advantage to him was questionable, because anti-black racism is more of a problem elsewhere in the world than here, and so that attitude would be something that would have to be overcome in some areas. I specifically did not say that he would be unable to overcome it.
Second, to the extent that his registration as a Muslim in Indonesia and his participation in a public school which even he has said was effectively a Muslim school (complete with Qur’anic study) qualify him as a murtad in the eyes of radical Islamists, a) that has nothing to do with his color at all, and b) I also did not say that this would be impossible for him to overcome. I did, however, say that it would pose a significant challenge.
Did I call him an apostate Muslim? Not precisely. I said that in the eyes of our jihadist enemies, he is an apostate Muslim, and they will make capital out of the fact if they can. It’s all very well for you to say, “applying any standard beyond his personal beliefs is simply wrong”–but they aren’t going to see it that way, and you can’t expect them to.
6) Find one place where I’ve said that Barack Obama is a bad man. You won’t be able to do it. Nor will you find a place where I’ve said he has problems with women–you’re being disingenuous. What I’ve done is raise the question of whether he has “a woman problem,” because some women in this country are drawing conclusions about him that, if he doesn’t dispel them, is going to hurt his support base. Nothing personal there, purely political calculus.
7) Are you a product of American politics? Heck yeah. So am I. That wasn’t the burden of my point, as I didn’t even use that phrase. If you want to prove to me that my growing suspicion–namely, that you’re one of those who, as I said, “believes that no one can ever disagree with you out of good motives”–is wrong, I’ll be pleased. You might start by retracting your arrogant and condescending self-anointing as the person responsible to lead me out of the extremism of conservatism into the enlightenment of liberalism.
Oh, and finally: no, I don’t think the quote I took from Jason Lee Steorts is the least bit inflammatory. Let’s do a thought experiment and change a couple words. I say, “My friends ask why I became a cop, and sometimes I wonder myself, but there is an answer, and it’s that I hate rapists.” Would you immediately assume that I was declaring that anyone who isn’t a cop is a rapist?
I certainly hope you wouldn’t. You certainly shouldn’t. The sentence as structured does one thing: it declares a personal reaction. It does not declare that reaction universal or inevitable; it does not universalize it as a motive; it does not say that anyone who has that reaction will reach that conclusion; nor does it say anything at all about people who do not have that reaction or who do not reach that conclusion. As such, it does not in any way say anything at all about anyone else except the speaker. I.e., to say that I am a conservative because I hate vandals–Steorts’ statement, but one with which I realized I’m in profound agreement–contains no content which says anything at all about why liberals are liberals, as I acknowledged to Doug. (For that matter, it also doesn’t say anything about why other conservatives are conservatives. As I also acknowledged to Doug, there are a lot of conservative vandals out there.) To interpret it in such a way is to flunk Logic 101 by reading all sorts of things into the statement that simply aren’t there.
This, I think, is Vanderei’s point: your conclusions are based not on what’s actually in my statements, but on assumptions which you’re reading into my statements, and that if you didn’t have all these preconceived notions of what conservatives believe, you would understand me differently. (In the trade, we call that “eisegesis”; it’s the sort of thing that gives us preachers like Joel Osteen. Never fear, though–I’m not implying any comparison between you and him.)
1) I am unsure how to receive your comment? What would you call it?
2) My mistake Rob. We had every reason in the world to invade Iraq, I mean weren’t they involved in the bombing of the World Trade Center bombing? Didn’t they have WMDs? And wow, I almost forgot, they tried to buy yellow cake in Nigeria! It is so good that we invaded that country, because I would have hated to have a mushroom cloud…. Oh, we can ignore the Geneva convention because these prisoners aren’t really prisoners of war. Oh, and the looters, we should just shoot them.
Now Rob, which one of these little tidbits was said by this Administration and how many are true? And that is just the short list. Head over to Amnesty International as I have no time to school you in ethics, nor should I have to.
3)”My friends ask what makes me a conservative, and sometimes I wonder myself, but there is an answer, and it’s that I hate vandals.”
The example that you gave and what you stated are apples and oranges. I am not sure how you missed that, but there is the quote for you to reread.
4 and 5) Innuendo is a powerful thing, and comments like Obama is a product of the Chicago Political Machine seem to present an underlying current of negativity without really stating it. For example, one of our dear fellow bloggers writes (with regards to McCain’s infamous temper): “Everyone in the Senate has their own McCain story.”
While the sentence unto itself doesn’t provide anything hurtful, the context of the sentence would hypothetically seem to indicate that McCain has a temper problem without actually saying it directly. I would suggest that many of your Obama comments are similarly constructed.
There was a story going around the web some time ago about the race in South Carolina during the 2000 elections (you have probably heard this). The story states that it is suspected that someone associated with the George Bush campaign floated an email rumor that John McCain had had an illicit affair with a woman of color and that this affair had resulted in an illegitimate child(McCain and his current wife adopted a child from Bangledesh – so it is true that he had a daughter of color (whom, it is stated, he loves very much)).
This email floated around South Carolina (SC is in the Bible Belt people)just before the primary (jumping from one congregation to another), and while this filthy lie was dispelled as quickly as possible, it is suspected that it played on the prejudices of the market. The results of the primary, this story goes, resulted in the South Carolina primary going unexpectedly away from McCain.
I have no idea whether this story is true or not, but it serves as an effective allegory as to the effects of lies, innuendo, and other methods for deception and how they can be used to “trick” honest, hard working people.
Suggestions that Obama is a Muslim is such an example. While even the pundits sprouting this information will be quick to state that he never chose to be a Muslim, but rather chose to be a Christian, it is my belief that they are trying to stir the anti-muslim sentiment in this country by its very mention.
Rob, I am sure at this point you are absolutely appalled at the very idea. Oh, I agree whole heartedly that it is extremely sleazy, but you would be surprised where you find filth of this sort….
Fortunately, there are people like me, arrogant, pompous jerks who go to these sites and try to stir humanity back into the mix. It is my self appointed responsibility to remind people about honor, integrity, and fair play.
Some times my job is truly a blessing and we see conversations that illicit healthy and spectacular conversations – who should be the Vice Presidential nominee as an example.
But other times we see hateful conversations wrapped in innuendo that spew false impressions, and those my friend are the most challenging and troublesome for me. As an example, a fine man wrote, “Does Obama have a woman problem?” I am sure that it is just a mental exercise, but I do my best to insure that a message of hope springs from that post versus one of hate, distrust, and false impressions.
Anyhow, this was an extremely long post and I am sure you have more important things to do than read my post. Have a great night Rob!
Rob,
One thing I forgot to mention, we agreed to shelve the Global Warming discussion pending a future post of yours.
And finally, I am not after you to change your opinion. It is, however, my desire to accentuate and promote your positive posts while challenging those that, in my humble opinion, bear false witness.
As an example, I have absolutely no problem with you saying that you dislike Obama or that, in your opinion, he isn’t ready to lead. That is a valid opinion and will be respected by me every single minute of every single day.
Others have suggested that Obama thinks he is the “Messiah” or worse, projected him as the “anti-christ”. There are other lies of this sort out there. Those are the types of discussions that I seek to challenge. I like to refer to them as Blogging Terrorists.
With that said, I would challenge lies of the same sort if they were presented about John McCain.
Honor is honor, irregardless of party affiliation.
Warmest regards.