Are we slaves to god?

[LordKiran]

So I've toyed with this topic for a while and can't seem to get my idea right so I'm just going to spill it out and see how it goes:

One of the greatest things about having no purpose to my being is just how liberating that is. That (On paper) I have zero obligations to anyone else beyond what I voluntarily burden myself with.

Tools by contrast, have a purpose. They are created to fulfill a specific need. They exist because their creators willed them into being, and exist solely to serve their creators/users.
Slaves exist in much the same way. In the abstract they potentially exist solely as a result of domestic breeding on the part of their parent's owners and are bound to the will of the one who owns them. Like tools slaves, have a purpose and in a way, exist to fulfill that purpose.

From this, I have come to believe that to have purpose is to be bound to someone else. That the word itself is closely related to bondage and enslavement.

So if you believe that god created you, and has a plan with you in mind. Are you then god's slave? He created you with a specific purpose in mind, right? If not then from where does the justification for your being come from? Does god create without intent? How can you claim god has a plan or purpose for you and then argue you are free from his plan?




Mods feel free to move this wherever. I wasn't sure where to put it.

 

[another1]

Ever seen a Mexican jumping bean? These amazing little beans that jump around for our enjoyment. Sadly there is a moth inside, and it has absolutely no idea what the hell is going on. It doesn't even hear us laughing at its pain. Maybe the fluttering of the Mexican moth wings is similar to what consciousness produces. Something which isn't as important as we think, to an enslaving God. I'd think it doesn't matter what pattern the innocent little moth wings flap in, they're just making a bean bounce across a table. But it was still a God what put them in the bean, so yeah. And at least there are beans to flop around in. I can't hear it laughing at my pathetic state, so I assume I'm not a big Mexican jumping bean. Accepting God is easier when you intensely despise it for years. Weird how that stuff happens.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Religious enslavement is the only kind there's ever been so gods and enslavement are inseparable, historically anyway. Slaves and masters both need gods. It's an interesting arrangement.

 

[Sarpedon]

Religious enslavement is the only kind there's ever been

Hwat?

 

[Malintent]

So I've toyed with this topic for a while and can't seem to get my idea right so I'm just going to spill it out and see how it goes:

One of the greatest things about having no purpose to my being is just how liberating that is. That (On paper) I have zero obligations to anyone else beyond what I voluntarily burden myself with.

Tools by contrast, have a purpose. They are created to fulfill a specific need. They exist because their creators willed them into being, and exist solely to serve their creators/users.
Slaves exist in much the same way. In the abstract they potentially exist solely as a result of domestic breeding on the part of their parent's owners and are bound to the will of the one who owns them. Like tools slaves, have a purpose and in a way, exist to fulfill that purpose.

From this, I have come to believe that to have purpose is to be bound to someone else. That the word itself is closely related to bondage and enslavement.

So if you believe that god created you, and has a plan with you in mind. Are you then god's slave? He created you with a specific purpose in mind, right? If not then from where does the justification for your being come from? Does god create without intent? How can you claim god has a plan or purpose for you and then argue you are free from his plan?




Mods feel free to move this wherever. I wasn't sure where to put it.

These are sound observations of the problem with the idea of 'special creation'.
such a god does not exist, so none of these are real problems.
If such a god did exist, these would pose quite the paradox.

 

[Treedbear]

FYI:Faithful and discreet slave -

The faithful and discreet slave is the term used by Jehovah's Witnesses to describe the religion's Governing Body in its role of directing doctrines and teachings.

 

[Malintent]

Ever seen a Mexican jumping bean? These amazing little beans that jump around for our enjoyment. Sadly there is a moth inside, and it has absolutely no idea what the hell is going on. It doesn't even hear us laughing at its pain. Maybe the fluttering of the Mexican moth wings is similar to what consciousness produces. Something which isn't as important as we think, to an enslaving God. I'd think it doesn't matter what pattern the innocent little moth wings flap in, they're just making a bean bounce across a table. But it was still a God what put them in the bean, so yeah. And at least there are beans to flop around in. I can't hear it laughing at my pathetic state, so I assume I'm not a big Mexican jumping bean. Accepting God is easier when you intensely despise it for years. Weird how that stuff happens.

wait, you say the moth can't hear us laughing at it, but it is still a slave of 'god'. you then say you can't hear god laughing at you, therefore you are not a slave to god... so which is it? do god slaves hear the laughter or not? According to the moth, you just might be a slave.

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the aspects of being a slave is the immediate and certain consequences of failing to heed the master's desires. No religion or diety, in the history of the world, has been able to guarantee this. It doesn't take people very long to figure this out.

Religious retribution is always seen in hindsight.

One of the many problems of being human is that we do have a purpose and we do have an obligation, but there is seldom an immediate consequence for failing to perform. A human being cannot survive on this planet, without the cooperation of other humans. This reality is obscured by the fact we never see the thousands of humans who help us survive everyday.

Take any human being, strip him naked and drop him any place on this planet, where there is no technology or other people, and he'll be dead in a couple weeks. If the weather doesn't kill him, he'll starve to death. Our mutual obligation to one another is a reality and our success as a species means we can avoid the consequences of ignoring that reality, most of the time.

Religion exists to reinforce and codify this obligation. It really helps to have a definition of to whom I'm obligated, and who is obligated to me. It's always the group known as us. My group gets my help, and they help me. In it's starkest form, this means, if you're not in my group, I'll kill your child in order for mine to survive.

This is a great system, as long as the lines between us and them are well defined. This is a problem older than Romeo and Juliet. When all the world becomes one big us, there is no one we can fuck over in order to insure our own survival. Well, actually there are lots of people, but we can't feel good about it, anymore.

 

[PyramidHead]

Right off the bat, the concept of a divine plan proves that theists don't really believe in an all-powerful god. Omnipotent beings don't make plans or need people to carry out their wishes. The gap between wanting something to be true and it being true only exists for those of us with less than infinite power. The whole idea of a plan is to craft a series of steps to get closer to a goal, but for an all-powerful god, there shouldn't be more than one step (snap your celestial fingers and make it happen). So, if we're tasked with carrying out god's grand scheme, it's doubly tragic: not only are we slaves, toiling away with our fragile bodies and limited minds, but we're slaves for somebody who doesn't even need slaves.

 

[LordKiran]

Right off the bat, the concept of a divine plan proves that theists don't really believe in an all-powerful god. Omnipotent beings don't make plans or need people to carry out their wishes. The gap between wanting something to be true and it being true only exists for those of us with less than infinite power. The whole idea of a plan is to craft a series of steps to get closer to a goal, but for an all-powerful god, there shouldn't be more than one step (snap your celestial fingers and make it happen). So, if we're tasked with carrying out god's grand scheme, it's doubly tragic: not only are we slaves, toiling away with our fragile bodies and limited minds, but we're slaves for somebody who doesn't even need slaves.

Unless the plan was to watch us fight and die for his amusement. Like Earth is just god's reality TV gameshow.

 

[LordKiran]

One of the aspects of being a slave is the immediate and certain consequences of failing to heed the master's desires. No religion or diety, in the history of the world, has been able to guarantee this. It doesn't take people very long to figure this out.

Religious retribution is always seen in hindsight.

One of the many problems of being human is that we do have a purpose and we do have an obligation, but there is seldom an immediate consequence for failing to perform. A human being cannot survive on this planet, without the cooperation of other humans. This reality is obscured by the fact we never see the thousands of humans who help us survive everyday.

Take any human being, strip him naked and drop him any place on this planet, where there is no technology or other people, and he'll be dead in a couple weeks. If the weather doesn't kill him, he'll starve to death. Our mutual obligation to one another is a reality and our success as a species means we can avoid the consequences of ignoring that reality, most of the time.

Religion exists to reinforce and codify this obligation. It really helps to have a definition of to whom I'm obligated, and who is obligated to me. It's always the group known as us. My group gets my help, and they help me. In it's starkest form, this means, if you're not in my group, I'll kill your child in order for mine to survive.

This is a great system, as long as the lines between us and them are well defined. This is a problem older than Romeo and Juliet. When all the world becomes one big us, there is no one we can fuck over in order to insure our own survival. Well, actually there are lots of people, but we can't feel good about it, anymore.

I disagree. While this relies on a specialized skillset not readily known to most people, it is entirely possible for people to survive alone in the wild. They might not thrive, and it might be a harder life than we'd get from working together for mutual benefit, but humans as a species are not strictly reliant on other humans to succeed as a species. (Success in this case can be considered survival, and the creation of offspring.)

 

[PyramidHead]

Right off the bat, the concept of a divine plan proves that theists don't really believe in an all-powerful god. Omnipotent beings don't make plans or need people to carry out their wishes. The gap between wanting something to be true and it being true only exists for those of us with less than infinite power. The whole idea of a plan is to craft a series of steps to get closer to a goal, but for an all-powerful god, there shouldn't be more than one step (snap your celestial fingers and make it happen). So, if we're tasked with carrying out god's grand scheme, it's doubly tragic: not only are we slaves, toiling away with our fragile bodies and limited minds, but we're slaves for somebody who doesn't even need slaves.

Unless the plan was to watch us fight and die for his amusement. Like Earth is just god's reality TV gameshow.

Couldn't he just snap his fingers and instantly gain whatever amusement he would have gotten from having to set up a universe, populate it with people, and wait for them to duke it out?

 

[LordKiran]

Unless the plan was to watch us fight and die for his amusement. Like Earth is just god's reality TV gameshow.

Couldn't he just snap his fingers and instantly gain whatever amusement he would have gotten from having to set up a universe, populate it with people, and wait for them to duke it out?

Eh, maybe the satisfaction comes from having to meticulously set it all up yourself, instead of effortlessly snapping one's fingers and just getting whatever one wanted.

The real question is if god can just will himself into a sense of eternal satisfaction or not.

 

[Lion IRC]

The story of the Prodigal son is a good account of how 'slaves' are free to leave anytime they like.

"...After a few days, the younger son got everything together and journeyed to a distant country, where he squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent all he had, a severe famine swept through that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed the pigs. He longed to fill his belly with the pods the pigs were eating, but no one would give him a thing. Finally he came to his senses and said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have plenty of food? But here I am, starving to death!"

 

[LordKiran]

The story of the Prodigal son is a good account of how 'slaves' are free to leave anytime they like.

"...After a few days, the younger son got everything together and journeyed to a distant country, where he squandered his wealth in wild living. After he had spent all he had, a severe famine swept through that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed the pigs. He longed to fill his belly with the pods the pigs were eating, but no one would give him a thing. Finally he came to his senses and said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have plenty of food? But here I am, starving to death!"

The Prodigal Son has nothing to do with slavery or a man's purpose for being. It's a story meant to highlight the father's unconditional love and mercy for his children, even if they are foolish and wasteful.

 

[Lion IRC]

Then you obviously missed the part where the son had to enter into servitude feeding pigs.
He swapped imaginary slavery for real slavery.

 

[LordKiran]

Then you obviously missed the part where the son had to enter into servitude feeding pigs.
He swapped imaginary slavery for real slavery.

I wouldn't call a hired servant a slave, as there are agreed upon terms before the arrangement is brokered. That aside, the point of the parable isn't that a boy squanders his inheritance and lowers himself into the servitude of others.

 

[Sarpedon]

I disagree. While this relies on a specialized skillset not readily known to most people, it is entirely possible for people to survive alone in the wild.

And how would one obtain that skillset without other people?

The story of the Prodigal son is a good account of how 'slaves' are free to leave anytime they like.

And in what way are we free to leave this world that god created and rules, when our only choices are two other worlds, that god also created and rules?

 

[Bronzeage]

One of the aspects of being a slave is the immediate and certain consequences of failing to heed the master's desires. No religion or diety, in the history of the world, has been able to guarantee this. It doesn't take people very long to figure this out.

Religious retribution is always seen in hindsight.

One of the many problems of being human is that we do have a purpose and we do have an obligation, but there is seldom an immediate consequence for failing to perform. A human being cannot survive on this planet, without the cooperation of other humans. This reality is obscured by the fact we never see the thousands of humans who help us survive everyday.

Take any human being, strip him naked and drop him any place on this planet, where there is no technology or other people, and he'll be dead in a couple weeks. If the weather doesn't kill him, he'll starve to death. Our mutual obligation to one another is a reality and our success as a species means we can avoid the consequences of ignoring that reality, most of the time.

Religion exists to reinforce and codify this obligation. It really helps to have a definition of to whom I'm obligated, and who is obligated to me. It's always the group known as us. My group gets my help, and they help me. In it's starkest form, this means, if you're not in my group, I'll kill your child in order for mine to survive.

This is a great system, as long as the lines between us and them are well defined. This is a problem older than Romeo and Juliet. When all the world becomes one big us, there is no one we can fuck over in order to insure our own survival. Well, actually there are lots of people, but we can't feel good about it, anymore.

I disagree. While this relies on a specialized skillset not readily known to most people, it is entirely possible for people to survive alone in the wild. They might not thrive, and it might be a harder life than we'd get from working together for mutual benefit, but humans as a species are not strictly reliant on other humans to succeed as a species. (Success in this case can be considered survival, and the creation of offspring.)

Humans are totally dependent upon one another for survival. You are welcome to test this assertion by taking off your clothes and walking into the wilderness. How exactly one could have offspring without reliance on another, is a rather vague premise.

 

[LordKiran]

I disagree. While this relies on a specialized skillset not readily known to most people, it is entirely possible for people to survive alone in the wild. They might not thrive, and it might be a harder life than we'd get from working together for mutual benefit, but humans as a species are not strictly reliant on other humans to succeed as a species. (Success in this case can be considered survival, and the creation of offspring.)

Humans are totally dependent upon one another for survival. You are welcome to test this assertion by taking off your clothes and walking into the wilderness. How exactly one could have offspring without reliance on another, is a rather vague premise.

Then let me clarify. Speaking very generally and broadly, Humans are no more strictly dependent on each other for survival than any other mammalian species. While I may not be the best example for bushcraft or wilderness survival, there are plenty of men and women capable of surviving in the wild indefinitely with or without survival equipment.

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would one obtain that skillset without other people?

The same way Lion Cubs acquire theirs I should imagine. From their parent(s). This is mostly my fault for not being specific enough.