tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6115375869553591839.post477438267697064142..comments2023-10-09T11:23:08.602-05:00Comments on Taking Place: How We Excuse SlaveryRagothhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02032216046972764021noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6115375869553591839.post-52949025291645426572008-12-06T16:25:00.000-06:002008-12-06T16:25:00.000-06:00Hey Tom,I'm really bogged down with work right now...Hey Tom,<BR/><BR/>I'm really bogged down with work right now, but I wanted to let you know I saw the comment and I'll get back to you as soon as possible. It could take me about a week, depending on how these papers come out. Also, I'm really not in the right head-space to be able to respond thoughtfully right now...<BR/><BR/>-RagothRagothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02032216046972764021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6115375869553591839.post-7136866244203873712008-12-06T16:00:00.000-06:002008-12-06T16:00:00.000-06:00Here's the really interesting part for me. Instead...<I>Here's the really interesting part for me. Instead of saying "Man, slavery...pretty bad. Here's an interesting kind-of-like-slavery system in Biblical times, and it's unfortunate that it would ever have to be used, but it works better than modern poverty...maybe we should do something to improve that," we instead get "Modern society is terrible….</I><BR/><BR/>Do <I>what?</I> It’s a piece of cake to say we should do something, but do what? With much of the world’s enlightened long intent on “doing something,” what have they come up with? The system described in the Bible <I>is</I> an example of doing something….I’m not advocating it be replicated today …. society is much different….yet many observed (you likened it to a sweet deal) it compares not unfavorably to modern day attempts to address poverty.<BR/><BR/>Similar thoughts present themselves with regard to “progressive, forward-thinking solutions,” as in:<BR/><BR/><I>My argument is simply that arguing from ancient paradigms and trying to return to ancient worldviews and modes of being is not the answer to any of our problems today. In fact, it's a major hindrance. I'm arguing that we should deal with what problems we can, and should be open to all possible solutions, including progressive, forward-thinking ones.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, sure, do you think I object to “dealing with what problems we can?” Has no one ever tried to do that before? The question again is, what have people come up with? And who doesn’t like "progressive, forward-thinking solutions?" The question is: what are they? Do we have the wisdom to recognize them? (<I>solutions,</I> that is, not merely forward-thinking <I>ideas</I>) And assuming for a moment that we do, can we gain the consensus necessary to implement such solutions? I don’t think history offers much reason for optimism. It wasn’t long ago that collateralized debt obligations, conceived as a model to spread risk around, was thought to be a progressive forward-thinking solution to the problem of promoting widespread economic growth. Alas, it was merely a forward-thinking <I>idea;</I> it sure wasn’t a solution.<BR/><BR/>Legal challenges and societal conflicts (in this country) are ultimately determined by how they square with the Constitution. Generally, people think that is a good thing. They don’t complain that it’s “arguing from ancient paradigms,” nor does it preclude “progressive, forward-thinking” solutions. (I grant you, the scriptures are a lot older than the Constitution, still the 1700’s are ancient compared to modern times.) We look to the Bible in this way, the same as a many Americans look primarily to their Constitution for guidance.<BR/><BR/>An example: In recent decades, significant steps have been taken to abandon the ancient paradigm of monogamous marriage in favor of progressive forward-thinking ideas governing living arrangements. Has society gained overall? I will grant you that these have sometimes resulted in a measure of individual freedom, but the overall effect on society has not been good. Children don’t do too well in unstable environments. Marriage, whatever it’s imperfections, is usually more stable than the aftermath of divorce, and always more stable than the present rage of everchanging sexual partners. For every “Juno” or “Mamma Mia” family out there, in which progressive morality seemingly brings no harm to the child….all matters end in storybook fashion, there are dozens of families which suffer great harm. Even AIDS….you linked to an article discussing AIDS…..would be a non-issue were Bible morality (monogamous marriage with chastity beforehand) observed. Not too bad for an ancient paradigm.<BR/><BR/>I realize it’s not a complete answer, especially among today’s general society representing many backgrounds. But since it is a model that works when followed, it sure doesn’t make sense to disparage or weaken it. At one time strictures encouraging the marriage model and discouraging divorce were written into society. Scuttling this model in favor of progressive forward-thinking ideas has, for the most part, promoted social chaos. <BR/><BR/>In fact, the ancient Bible paradigm of marriage even becomes a progressive forward-thinking idea itself with regard to “saving the planet;” something we all want to do. Single parents living separately draw more energy and consume more resources than does a traditional family all under one roof. Thus, contemporaries who express concern over wasting the planet actually advance such waste through progressive forward-thinking lifestyles.<BR/><BR/>When it comes to governing ourselves, do we really know what the progressive forward-thinking solutions are? It’s axiomatic in most of the West that democracy’s the way to go…it offers the fewest restrictions on our personal freedoms (people love that). Yet George W’s efforts to export it into the Middle East have hardly met with resounding success. Much of South America is moving away from the democratic model in favor of more socialist rule. Communist China is the nation on the rise today, with hundreds of gleaming cities arising from what just a few years ago was barren field. And somewhere…..rats, I can’t find the quote….some long-dead statesman declared that democracy cannot succeed because citizens eventually discover they have control over the public purse, after which they spend themselves into insolvency, a prophesy which has pretty well come to pass in the U.S. today. <BR/><BR/>In contrast, Plato proposed a society ruled by philosopher-kings. His musings are thought to be too idealistic for practical implementation, yet many in philosophy have thought that model offers a progressive forward-thinking solution. Strikingly, it is this very model, with only minor deviations, that typify the governing arrangements among Jehovah’s Witnesses today. Under this form of government, JWs have succeeded in shunning nationalism (another progressive forward-thinking solution) and thus, in the words of Isaiah (and the U.N.) “learning war no more.”<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/57rj3q<BR/><BR/>Now, as to “And that's the exact problem - the truly religious among us still carry with them and want to enforce ancient modes of thought and social relations.” This is not an argument against God or even religion per se, but only “toxic religion.” It doesn’t apply to Jehovah’s Witnesses. When we visit, we do our best to persuade, to be sure. But we don’t enforce. If people disagree with us, we go away. We don’t afterwards try to legislate our views into law so as to make others live as we do. We thus provide a model for how people with radically different ideas can peacefully integrate into the rest of society. For, most of us (hopefully) will tolerate different ideas (though you‘d never know it from the internet), so long as their propagation is by means of persuasion and not force.<BR/><BR/>And did you not represent my viewpoint as “an argument that whatever was going on in Biblical times was okay and approved by God, and thus it had to be better than the modern world.”? No. Lots of things in OT times were not “okay,” yet may have been the best option for a given society at a given time and certain point of development. When Jesus was asked about the ludicrously liberal divorce grounds allowed for in then-Jewish life, he said “Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning.” Thus, there are concessions and temporary measures that aren’t meant to be a template for future generations….they are recorded history, that’s all. When God’s purpose toward humankind, a long work-in-progress that began ages ago, is at last completed, there (again per Isaiah) will be “war no more.” Thus the aspect of slavery that you feel I sidestepped becomes a mute point. But this final paragraph would take some time to develop and I’m not going to do it now. Maybe later.tom sheepandgoatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519896568648043000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6115375869553591839.post-33820910560615973962008-12-02T15:15:00.000-06:002008-12-02T15:15:00.000-06:00I really wish I knew how to get that many comments...I really wish I knew how to get that many comments or page views. Being linked to by the bigger blogs helps, but how to attract their attention...that's the rub.<BR/><BR/>And yeah, there is a lot of abuse. Anonymity in the blogging sphere.<BR/><BR/>Take your time, I've got papers to write in the next two weeks, so I'll probably only be trickling things onto here.Ragothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02032216046972764021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6115375869553591839.post-27108176797760278202008-12-02T08:03:00.000-06:002008-12-02T08:03:00.000-06:00Whoa....this Jean woman has 77 comments. How does ...Whoa....this Jean woman has 77 comments. How does she do that? I'm envious. Even the atheist fellow has 30-something.<BR/><BR/>Of course, a lot of them are abusive and/or namecalling which is what the internet excels at. Even so....<BR/><BR/>Good reasoning on your part Ragoth. You are indeed a worthy adversary and yes, I respect you as well. I'll cobble something together soon by way of reply, but I <I>already</I> owe you one. (which I haven't forgotten)tom sheepandgoatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03519896568648043000noreply@blogger.com