reply to post by Resinveins
Some of us might respond that being a slave is not "worth doing".
Even when I was a Baptist intent on becoming a minister, I could never really get my head around the cannonization of the Epistles. The argument that
God wouldn't let the pen-holders change anything breaks down when you consider that the very last words in the bible are a warning not to add or
subtract. Why would god forbid something that could not possibly be done? Likewise the idea that the cannonization process was influenced by divine
inspiration breaks down since there actually are multiple cannons in use by faiths that share a common essential doctrine of salvation (not to mention
the fact that two of the cannonized books don't even include the word God, and that Jesus made allusion to prophecies from uncannonized books.
I considered them useful historical context for the gospels, but there was no getting around the fact that these are letters between mortal men in
positions of worldly leadership, and were not primarily intended to record a prophetic experience. There's just no getting around the fact that the
epistles have been tainted by this world and that unquestioning obedience to them is absolutely tantamount to the doctine of papal infallibility that
protestants so love to criticize catholics for. The only difference is that Catholics think that in any difference of opinion between two infallible
men, the one currently living takes precedence, whereas protestants only acknowledge the infallibility of dead church leaders.
In my opinion, each side is half right. Protestants are right about Catholics being wrong, and Catholics are right about Protestants being wrong- but
both sides are wrong about thinking that the words of church leaders are infallible.
If you absolutely insist on living your life by a philosophy that predates (and thus ignores) 99% of Western knowledge (and I'm not saying you
should) then just do yourself one favor. Look at the beginning of each book and passage for the attribution.
Because some parts say "God showed me such and such which is to come" and some parts say "Jesus said to his followers...". You can tell those are
the good parts because they are clearly marked as being from Jesus to you the follower, or from God to you the guy in the future.
But other parts (the epistles) say "This is a letter from Joe Schmoe at the church in Bumsville, for Jane Doe at the church in Podunk".
And I'm not ready to be a good slave just because Joe Schmoe told Jane Doe that it's worth doing. A lot of people died to end slavery thinking that
God was on their side, and since A. They won, and B. It's convenient for me, I'm going to go ahead and assume that God was on their side. And that
pretty much means the verse in question here goes right out the window for me.
