TheEditor wrote:Hi Peter,
Good conversation.
Thank you, I agree.
TheEditor wrote:
For starters, I would say that if you are using this passage in it's very limited sense (advice to 1st century slaves), then no problem. But you are stretching the application. If we are going to stretch applications, then why not stretch the application of other verses Paul uses in counselling slaves? Namely;
1 Corinthians 7:21; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18-20
By the way, let's not forget what many slave owners then used slaves for, and that includes both heterosexual and homosexual uses.
Perhaps I am stretching the application here, but I'm not finding it difficult to follow the main teaching of these passages in the context of government. The main teaching of these passages is that slaves are not to rebel against their masters. In like manner, as I have already affirmed, men are not to engage in a violent rebellion against the government they are subjected to.
I had been unaware, until now, of the sexual use of slaves in the historical context. This obviously presents a difficulty I haven't had opportunity to think much about yet - is it your understanding that Paul was advising slaves to submit to the sexual advances of their masters?
In any case, even if I the application of scripture I suggested above is invalid, my argument that the State consumes a vast amount of my time that might be better spent elsewhere remains. The possibility of diminishing this burden seems to be a worthy goal that addresses your primary concern.
TheEditor wrote:
Frankly, I can see a myriad of "trade-off" problems living in a society as envisioned by you. First off, I would need a LOT of guns--big ones. Some form of order would have to be enforced somehow, and I don't want to sign on for that. Do you?
I think such is jumping to conclusions about what such a society would like. Gustave de Molinari, Murry Rothbard, and others have advanced what I see as plausible arguments for the private production of security. Perhaps their ideas would lead to petty crimes being more rampant than what they are today, but on the other one has to account in the trade off the benefit of not having a State which frequently causes mass causilties with a standing army. Obviously, I don't embrace a Hobbesian view of the nature of man.
TheEditor wrote:
It seems it's not our business to be socially engineering the wider world estranged from Christ.
But that's just my opinion.
I share this opinion. I would just like to submit the observation that your affirmations in favor of having a particular role for the State is arguably slightly more of a form of engineering the world than what I am proposing.
TheEditor wrote:
If you disagree, that's fine, go knock your socks off, have fun with that, and write me when you have success.
Thanks. I do not expect to be writing any time soon. If you believe my judgement on these matters is wrong, I welcome you to disabuse me of the errors of my ways.
Regards, Peter