Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[tomberg]

There are absolute moral truths. We can agree things like rape, killing innocent people unnecessarily, etc. is wrong (I’m just using these because if I say lying or something then someone will try to justify it certain circumstances whereas no one will try to justify these) no matter what the person who is doing it thinks about it.

If there are truths then it does not make sense that two completely different views about an issue are true. You say that is moral, while the other person said it is not. You can’t both be right.

Science contains truths. For example, someone thinks life can come out of non life their view is wrong.

God does not change. He doesn’t change what is right and wrong over time. There is biblical evidence condemning these actions. St. Paul basically said in Romans 1 that the people in Sodom got what they deserved.

Mainstream Protestant denominations that bless or perform these so called “marriages” are immoral.

That is simply not true. God’s law does change, and very little of it is eternal. Things which used to be considered not only permissive, but actually demanded by God would be considered absolutely evil today. God absolutely has changed what is right or wrong over time, the examples abound in the Old Testament, and to say God’s law does not change and is eternal, obviously has not read the Bible, nor God’s continuing revelation to the World. Had God’s law been unchanging and eternal, we would all be Jewish and following ALL OF THE LEVITICAL LAWS. Heck the Catholic Church entirely removed the 2nd Commandment against the making of graven images and changed the day of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. This is just such a false statement I don’t even know where to start. Also there was not the separation between moral laws and ceremonial laws in the ancient world. All law was moral as it was all derived from GOD, so don’t even try to make this argument. I am a lawyer and have extensively studied the history of law, and this is a purely false distinction that Christians make who are uncomfortable with actions in the Old Testament or their rejection of silly Levitical laws like to make in their effort to retain antiquated views that they want to retain, and reject antiquated rules and regulations demanded by the Old Law which they have no interest in following.

 

[cena]

That is simply not true. God’s law does change, and very little of it is eternal. Things which used to be considered not only permissive, but actually demanded by God would be considered absolutely evil today. God absolutely has changed what is right or wrong over time, the examples abound in the Old Testament, and to say God’s law does not change and is eternal, obviously has not read the Bible, nor God’s continuing revelation to the World. Had God’s law been unchanging and eternal, we would all be Jewish and following ALL OF THE LEVITICAL LAWS. Heck the Catholic Church entirely removed the 2nd Commandment against the making of graven images and changed the day of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. This is just such a false statement I don’t even know where to start. Also there was not the separation between moral laws and ceremonial laws in the ancient world. All law was moral as it was all derived from GOD, so don’t even try to make this argument. I am a lawyer and have extensively studied the history of law, and this is a purely false distinction that Christians make who are uncomfortable with actions in the Old Testament or their rejection of silly Levitical laws like to make in their effort to retain antiquated views that they want to retain, and reject antiquated rules and regulations demanded by the Old Law which they have no interest in following.

Where do you draw the line with what is moral and immoral?

Is adultery, idolatry, etc okay since God’s laws change? What things that are wrong before are okay now? What things are still wrong? What are God’s laws now?

 

[Peter_Plato]

My argument has consistently pertained to valid moral beliefs. You as a good Catholic believe that same sex marriage is sinful and immoral. No one should have a problem accepting that it is what you believe. I have not been a Catholic since elementary school, if ever. As an adult, in my 30s, I began to attend a Presbyterian Church. When I moved I was literally drawn to the United Church of Christ in my neighborhood. It had nothing to do with gay marriage as it was prior to the year the UCC 25th Synod endorsed same-sex marriage. So I don’t think you would expect me to have the same moral beliefs that you do,

Perhaps you can understand that my beliefs have no bearing on you adhering to your own beliefs. If you are unable to or refuse to understand that there are valid moral beliefs other than your own then by extension you must believe that main stream Protestant denominations that perform same sex marriages and blessings are immoral. And if you believe that then the best we can do is agree to disagree.

Well, no, that shows you have no idea what moral “beliefs” are, or at least, hold an incoherent view of what they are.

Moral “beliefs,” if they are to mean anything, must be grounded on moral principles. Moral principles, in turn, if they are to mean anything, imply a categorical imperative. Moral principles are obligatory for all moral agents. There is no “opt out clause” that says, “If you disbelieve, you are absolved from all moral beliefs you disagree with.”

If that were the case, then rapists, murderers and child molesters could simply say, “Those are YOUR moral beliefs and not mine, therefore, the best we can do is ‘agree to disagree.’ YOU don’t rape, murder or molest children because those are YOUR beliefs. I simply don’t share them, so I have decided I will rape, murder and molest children.”

Your view of what “moral” means simply falls apart, right there.

The question still remains as to whether anyone’s beliefs with regard to obligatory moral principles are true or correct. If you want to claim moral beliefs inherently cannot be decided and must remain unresolved then be sure to allow the rapist, murder and child molester the same “out” clause when s/he doesn’t want to buy into your “mainstream Protestant” moral “beliefs.” :banghead:

 

[tomberg]

Where do you draw the line with what is moral and immoral?

Is adultery, idolatry, etc okay since God’s laws change? What things that are wrong before are okay now? What things are still wrong? What are God’s laws now?

Two laws; Love the Lord your god with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Everything else is culturally conditional and that is proven by the Bible itself. How do you respond to the FACT that the Catholic Church completely removed the 2nd Commandment about the making of graven images? Furthermore, how do you respond to THE FACT, that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. God’s law obviously is not eternal and unchanging, otherwise these changes would not have been made. These are just two small examples.
How many of the over 600 Levitical Laws do you follow today? Why did Paul say that Christians were no longer subject to the most important of the Jewish laws about Circumcision, or about Diet? Again, God’s law changed, there is simply no disputing this.

 

[bisco1]

you misunderstand catholic teaching.

 

[cena]

Two laws; Love the Lord your god with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Everything else is culturally conditional and that is proven by the Bible itself. How do you respond to the FACT that the Catholic Church completely removed the 2nd Commandment about the making of graven images? Furthermore, how do you respond to THE FACT, that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. God’s law obviously is not eternal and unchanging, otherwise these changes would not have been made. These are just two small examples.
How many of the over 600 Levitical Laws do you follow today? Why did Paul say that Christians were no longer subject to the most important of the Jewish laws about Circumcision, or about Diet? Again, God’s law changed, there is simply no disputing this.

Moving the sabbath day is still setting aside a day to worship God. We still have diet rules, but you are correct they are not the same.

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-the-catholic-church-change-the-ten-commandments
"1. Exodus 20:4 is part of the first commandment that begins in verse 3 and stretches through part of verse five:

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

Verses 3 and 5 make clear that this commandment is not simply condemning making statues; It is condemning making gods that you bow down to or serve. In a word, this first commandment forbids idolatry, i.e., the worship of anything or anyone other than God. The Catholic Church condemns this as well."

Are you arguing for same sex “marriage” or are you just trying to prove that laws change?

So if laws change, is it okay to steal now? Which laws did not change and we must follow and why?

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is simply not true. God’s law does change, and very little of it is eternal. Things which used to be considered not only permissive, but actually demanded by God would be considered absolutely evil today. God absolutely has changed what is right or wrong over time, the examples abound in the Old Testament, and to say God’s law does not change and is eternal, obviously has not read the Bible, nor God’s continuing revelation to the World. Had God’s law been unchanging and eternal, we would all be Jewish and following ALL OF THE LEVITICAL LAWS. Heck the Catholic Church entirely removed the 2nd Commandment against the making of graven images and changed the day of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. This is just such a false statement I don’t even know where to start. Also there was not the separation between moral laws and ceremonial laws in the ancient world. All law was moral as it was all derived from GOD, so don’t even try to make this argument. I am a lawyer and have extensively studied the history of law, and this is a purely false distinction that Christians make who are uncomfortable with actions in the Old Testament or their rejection of silly Levitical laws like to make in their effort to retain antiquated views that they want to retain, and reject antiquated rules and regulations demanded by the Old Law which they have no interest in following.

You are confusing the practical application or enforcement of moral principles with the foundational moral and spiritual principles that undergird reality. Those grounding principles have not changed. The Final Good is still the Final Good, although how to achieve that has altered because human circumstances have. Your view involves a simplistic understanding of God, human nature and what could be called the “plan of salvation.”

What is at stake is not merely the enforcement of moral and spiritual principles but of forming human beings and wills to accepting and incorporating those principles into living and being according to them at the level of intention and being itself.

 

[Thorolfr]

Where do you draw the line with what is moral and immoral?

Is adultery, idolatry, etc okay since God’s laws change? What things that are wrong before are okay now? What things are still wrong? What are God’s laws now?

And what about things that were OK before but are wrong now such as slavery?

 

[cena]

And what about things that were OK before but are wrong now such as slavery?

the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/30/slaverymeme/

 

[clem456]

And what about things that were OK before but are wrong now such as slavery?

God reveals himself. God is a personal God, not a book. Hence our knowledge of God and his will matures over time, as we develop a more full relationship with him as a people. The bible records this journey. It’s not much different than how an infant learns proper behavior as she matures.

Is it ever ok for an infant to hit her playmate on the head, or steal her toy? Of course not. But we also realize that ignorance colors our behavior (note that it doesn’t excuse our behavior, it is just not well formed).

The OT testament is full of bad behavior, a lot of which is attributed to God’s will, according to the ancient understanding of God. That literature speaks to us, even in it’s ignorance, but only fundamentalists read these passages as condoning slavery, or faith killings in God’s name etc…in the here and now.

 

[tomberg]

Moving the sabbath day is still setting aside a day to worship God. We still have diet rules, but you are correct they are not the same.

catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/did-the-catholic-church-change-the-ten-commandments
"1. Exodus 20:4 is part of the first commandment that begins in verse 3 and stretches through part of verse five:

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.

Verses 3 and 5 make clear that this commandment is not simply condemning making statues; It is condemning making gods that you bow down to or serve. In a word, this first commandment forbids idolatry, i.e., the worship of anything or anyone other than God. The Catholic Church condemns this as well."

Are you arguing for same sex “marriage” or are you just trying to prove that laws change?

So if laws change, is it okay to steal now? Which laws did not change and we must follow and why?

The Catholic Church still eliminated it. There is a clear prohibition on the making of images and the Church has excised it from the 10 Commandments.
I am not trying to argue for or against same sex marriage, only that laws change over time. Even god’s law. G-d does not change, but G-d is not the law. G-d’s law for us changes as we change as a people. Again if the law never changed, we would all be Jews under the Old Law. Obviously god’s laws changed. This is simply beyond dispute, so it is just false to say that God’s laws do not change. They do and they have.
Again I think only two laws are eternal and Jesus told us exactly what they are: “Love your lord your god with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
The rest of the laws are culturally dependent and only exist for the good of the society in which people live, they are not inviolate for all eternity. Stealing is wrong because clearly I would not want someone to steal from me. Murder is wrong because clearly I would not want someone to murder me. Rape is wrong because obviously I do not want someone to rape me. These all violate Christ law to love our neighbor as ourself. I believe that this is as close to a categorical imperative as we can obtain as human beings, but there have been several moral and legal theorist that can find flaws in this approach as well, but it is at this point the best guidance we have been provided as to what is and what is not moral behavior.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How do you respond to the FACT that the Catholic Church completely removed the 2nd Commandment about the making of graven images?

What makes any image a “graven” one? Perhaps answering that will answer why the Church allows the making of images that are not graven.

Furthermore, how do you respond to THE FACT, that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. God’s law obviously is not eternal and unchanging, otherwise these changes would not have been made. These are just two small examples.

And they are rather poor examples. Do you not understand that Christ is the beginning of a new creation. The Sabbath rest has given over to an entirely new creation, so Sunday celebrates the first day of that creation, rather than resting at the end of the old one.

How many of the over 600 Levitical Laws do you follow today? Why did Paul say that Christians were no longer subject to the most important of the Jewish laws about Circumcision, or about Diet? Again, God’s law changed, there is simply no disputing this.

You show in the above comments that you have no clue about Church teaching and why those “practical” changes have been made to “the Law.” Do you suppose Abraham was compelled to follow those same Levitical Laws or Mosaic Laws? No? Why not? Did God change? Do you suppose Abraham was any less moral, any less human or any less doing what God willed than the people of Israel? Was it the laws that made the difference and made Israel MORE pleasing to God than Abraham? Why did God hold the Jews accountable to those laws, then? Was he merely being capricious or were those laws the ones that were required for them at that time and that fact allows for the possibility that Church laws are those required by human beings after Christ and because of Christ?

Read the New Testament. The reason why the Levitical Laws are no longer in effect after Christ because of Christ is because he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. Human beings are no longer held to its restrictions. The new covenant, the Kingdom of God, however, does have an entirely new set of guiding laws. These are specifically detailed by Jesus in the Beatitudes, by the teachings of Jesus throughout the Gospels and by the magisterium of the Church.

“Whatsoever you bind in earth will be bound in Heaven. Whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.”

Those words have made the Apostles and their successors the chief stewards of the Kingdom here on Earth. The authority of the Laws and priests of Israel has been turned over, by Christ himself, to the Apostles and their successors. The Church holds the keys of the Kingdom and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit clearly and decisively details the laws that follow from Christ’s teaching.

Without those, you are left entirely to the changing winds to understand what “love God” and “love neighbor” really mean.

A jealous husband might kill his wif out of “love” for her. A fanatical ISIS militant may sincerely think that his absolute desire to murder is the ultimate example of his showing love for God. You have your ideas about what loving God and loving neighbor entails, but how do you know with any certainty that you are correct?

Your actions and choices may be what you want, but are they what God wants from you at this moment in time?

 

[tomberg]

You are confusing the practical application or enforcement of moral principles with the foundational moral and spiritual principles that undergird reality. Those grounding principles have not changed. The Final Good is still the Final Good, although how to achieve that has altered because human circumstances have. Your view involves a simplistic understanding of God, human nature and what could be called the “plan of salvation.”

What is at stake is not merely the enforcement of moral and spiritual principles but of forming human beings and wills to accepting and incorporating those principles into living and being according to them at the level of intention and being itself.

I am not confusing anything, you are just wanting to take a very narrow and exclusive approach to dictate what those spiritual and moral principles are based upon your understanding. The enforcement mechanism for those morals is directly bound to them. If execution of homosexuals was a proper method of enforcing those morals then, than it must necessarily be moral now. According to you, those morals do not change, and God grants explicit permission to execute homosexuals. Sorry, your argument fails.

 

[cena]

The Catholic Church still eliminated it. There is a clear prohibition on the making of images and the Church has excised it from the 10 Commandments.
I am not trying to argue for or against same sex marriage, only that laws change over time. Even god’s law. G-d does not change, but G-d is not the law. G-d’s law for us changes as we change as a people. Again if the law never changed, we would all be Jews under the Old Law. Obviously god’s laws changed. This is simply beyond dispute, so it is just false to say that God’s laws do not change. They do and they have.
Again I think only two laws are eternal and Jesus told us exactly what they are: “Love your lord your god with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
The rest of the laws are culturally dependent and only exist for the good of the society in which people live, they are not inviolate for all eternity. Stealing is wrong because clearly I would not want someone to steal from me. Murder is wrong because clearly I would not want someone to murder me. Rape is wrong because obviously I do not want someone to rape me. These all violate Christ law to love our neighbor as ourself. I believe that this is as close to a categorical imperative as we can obtain as human beings, but there have been several moral and legal theorist that can find flaws in this approach as well, but it is at this point the best guidance we have been provided as to what is and what is not moral behavior.

It said not to make images and worship them. Catholics don’t worship images.

 

[cena]

The Catholic Church still eliminated it. There is a clear prohibition on the making of images and the Church has excised it from the 10 Commandments.
I am not trying to argue for or against same sex marriage, only that laws change over time. Even god’s law. G-d does not change, but G-d is not the law. G-d’s law for us changes as we change as a people. Again if the law never changed, we would all be Jews under the Old Law. Obviously god’s laws changed. This is simply beyond dispute, so it is just false to say that God’s laws do not change. They do and they have.
Again I think only two laws are eternal and Jesus told us exactly what they are: “Love your lord your god with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
The rest of the laws are culturally dependent and only exist for the good of the society in which people live, they are not inviolate for all eternity. Stealing is wrong because clearly I would not want someone to steal from me. Murder is wrong because clearly I would not want someone to murder me. Rape is wrong because obviously I do not want someone to rape me. These all violate Christ law to love our neighbor as ourself. I believe that this is as close to a categorical imperative as we can obtain as human beings, but there have been several moral and legal theorist that can find flaws in this approach as well, but it is at this point the best guidance we have been provided as to what is and what is not moral behavior.

What about the other stuff Jesus taught? Like divorce is wrong, hate is wrong, lustful thoughts are wrong, etc. What about sins like contraception or IVF that don’t “hurt anyone”?

 

[tomberg]

What makes any image a “graven” one? Perhaps answering that will answer why the Church allows the making of images that are not graven.

And they are rather poor examples. Do you not understand that Christ is the beginning of a new creation. The Sabbath rest has given over to an entirely new creation, so Sunday celebrates the first day of that creation, rather than resting at the end of the old one.

You show in the above comments that you have no clue about Church teaching and why those “practical” changes have been made to “the Law.” Do you suppose Abraham was compelled to follow those same Levitical Laws or Mosaic Laws? No? Why not? Did God change? Do you suppose Abraham was any less moral, any less human or any less doing what God willed than the people of Israel? Was it the laws that made the difference and made Israel MORE pleasing to God than Abraham? Why did God hold the Jews accountable to those laws, then? Was he merely being capricious or were those laws the ones that were required for them at that time and that fact allows for the possibility that Church laws are those required by human beings after Christ and because of Christ?

Read the New Testament. The reason why the Levitical Laws are no longer in effect after Christ because of Christ is because he fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant. Human beings are no longer held to its restrictions. The new covenant, the Kingdom of God, however, does have an entirely new set of guiding laws. These are specifically detailed by Jesus in the Beatitudes, by the teachings of Jesus throughout the Gospels and by the magisterium of the Church.

“Whatsoever you bind in earth will be bound in Heaven. Whatsoever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.”

Those words have made the Apostles and their successors the chief stewards of the Kingdom here on Earth. The authority of the Laws and priests of Israel has been turned over, by Christ himself, to the Apostles and their successors. The Church holds the keys of the Kingdom and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit clearly and decisively details the laws that follow from Christ’s teaching.

Without those, you are left entirely to the changing winds to understand what “love God” and “love neighbor” really mean.

A jealous husband might kill his wif out of “love” for her. A fanatical ISIS militant may sincerely think that his absolute desire to murder is the ultimate example of his showing love for God. You have your ideas about what loving God and loving neighbor entails, but how do you know with any certainty that you are correct?

Your actions and choices may be what you want, but are they what God wants from you at this moment in time?

Again, you can keep trying to justify the obvious. God’s laws change, and are not eternal and unchanging. How could Christ hand over the law to the apostles and give them power over the laws, unless the laws Changed. What would there be to bind or loose, if there was nothing to ever change. You can absolutely claim that this authority was handed over to the Church, I don’t disagree with that. If you want to claim that the Catholic Church has the authority to determine what is moral and what is not, that is another matter entirely. What I disagree with is that God’s laws are eternal and unchanging, from start to finish. They obviously are not.
Last I agree that Jesus changed everything, but again, it changed. And in all of Jesus’s teaching from the 4 gospels, it is fascinating that even though homosexuality was rampant in the ancient world, Jesus did not bother to say a single thing about it. I guess he had other concerns, like love, compassion, helping the outcast, the sick and the poor.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And what about things that were OK before but are wrong now such as slavery?

Is slavery, per se, wrong? Is it wrong to BE a slave or merely wrong to mistreat a slave? Are we not to be, as Paul says, “slaves of Christ.” How can we do that if slavery, per se, is wrong?

Are you implying that Christ, himself, must be morally deficient by keeping human slaves and Paul for advocating it? That would be the implication of your suggestion that “slavery” per se is wrong.

What exactly is wrong about keeping slaves? Is it that they lose their freedom?

But Jesus insists that humans are slaves to sin and that becoming “slaves” to him we will be set free from sin. It appears that slavery is the lot of every human whether we know it or acknowledge it. The question is whether we want to be slaves to our own passions and sins or whether we want to be slaves to the omniscient and omnibenevolent order that God has in mind for the universe? Slave to lies and deceit or slaves to the truth.

Should we be “free” to ignore the truth or are we bound to it? If we are bound to it, then we are slaves to it since we have no option but to do what it says, correct?

Or, are you saying we should be free from the truth itself to make up our own truth as we decide? Based upon what exactly? Sheer willful determination for its own sake?

This slavery thing seems a red herring and an irrelevant issue.

It has nothing to do with slavery, in principle, but the way in which our fellow men are treated by those in authority over them. It also revolves around the issue of freedom vs license and whether true human freedom is merely getting what we think we want in all instances as opposed to what is truly and objectively good.

 

[clem456]

I am not confusing anything, you are just wanting to take a very narrow and exclusive approach to dictate what those spiritual and moral principles are based upon your understanding. The enforcement mechanism for those morals is directly bound to them. If execution of homosexuals was a proper method of enforcing those morals then, than it must necessarily be moral now. According to you, those morals do not change, and God grants explicit permission to execute homosexuals. Sorry, your argument fails.

You read Scripture without a proper understanding of inspiration.
The Catholic Church does not read scripture in a literalist fashion.

And no, God does not change. God is the source of morality. The embodiment of morality is Jesus Christ. You have some things confused.

 

[cena]

Again, you can keep trying to justify the obvious. God’s laws change, and are not eternal and unchanging. How could Christ hand over the law to the apostles and give them power over the laws, unless the laws Changed. What would there be to bind or loose, if there was nothing to ever change. You can absolutely claim that this authority was handed over to the Church, I don’t disagree with that. If you want to claim that the Catholic Church has the authority to determine what is moral and what is not, that is another matter entirely. What I disagree with is that God’s laws are eternal and unchanging, from start to finish. They obviously are not.
Last I agree that Jesus changed everything, but again, it changed. And in all of Jesus’s teaching from the 4 gospels, it is fascinating that even though homosexuality was rampant in the ancient world, Jesus did not bother to say a single thing about it. I guess he had other concerns, like love, compassion, helping the outcast, the sick and the poor.

John 21:25 - But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

He could have spoken against it and the gospel writers didn’t write it down

 

[tomberg]

Is slavery, per se, wrong? Is it wrong to BE a slave or merely wrong to mistreat a slave? Are we not to be, as Paul says, “slaves of Christ.” How can we do that if slavery, per se, is wrong?

Are you implying that Christ, himself, must be morally deficient by keeping human slaves and Paul for advocating it? That would be the implication of your suggestion that “slavery” per se is wrong.

What exactly is wrong about keeping slaves? Is it that they lose their freedom?

But Jesus insists that humans are slaves to sin and that becoming “slaves” to him we will be set free from sin. It appears that slavery is the lot of every human whether we know it or acknowledge it. The question is whether we want to be slaves to our own passions and sins or whether we want to be slaves to the omniscient and omnibenevolent order that God has in mind for the universe? Slave to lies and deceit or slaves to the truth.

Should we be “free” to ignore the truth or are we bound to it? If we are bound to it, then we are slaves to it since we have no option but to do what it says, correct?

Or, are you saying we should be free from the truth itself to make up our own truth as we decide? Based upon what exactly? Sheer willful determination for its own sake?

This slavery thing seems a red herring and an irrelevant issue.

It has nothing to do with slavery, in principle, but the way in which our fellow men are treated by those in authority over them. It also revolves around the issue of freedom vs license and whether true human freedom is merely getting what we think we want in all instances as opposed to what is truly and objectively good.

I think Paul was being metaphorical and yes there is plenty wrong with slavery PER SE. god obviously does not want us to be slaves otherwise we would not have free will. He would have made us slaves without free will could only obey him. You just made one of the worst all time arguments I have ever seen.