The phrase "He made it [the world], and he owns it" appears on page 2 of the presentation. Ownership is not a matter of fact, but one of social and legal convention, and yet surely in the Christian worldview God is not subject to any kind of social or legal constraint? So why does the presentation bring up this idea of ownership? It seems like a rhetorical appeal to people who live in a capitalist society and believe that ownership is a fundamental feature of the moral universe, so that ownership unquestionably justifies a whole panoply of rights by the owner over the possession. The same kind of rhetorical appeal that was used to justify slavery.
Then the presentation goes on to stress the idea of "rebellion", and repeatedly exhort the reader to obey, to be ruled, to submit. I'm sure you can see how the analogy suggests itself.
I'm not saying that my analogy is a fair summary of Christianity. But it's a fair summary of my reaction to the presentation.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-26 08:50 pm (UTC)The phrase "He made it [the world], and he owns it" appears on page 2 of the presentation. Ownership is not a matter of fact, but one of social and legal convention, and yet surely in the Christian worldview God is not subject to any kind of social or legal constraint? So why does the presentation bring up this idea of ownership? It seems like a rhetorical appeal to people who live in a capitalist society and believe that ownership is a fundamental feature of the moral universe, so that ownership unquestionably justifies a whole panoply of rights by the owner over the possession. The same kind of rhetorical appeal that was used to justify slavery.
Then the presentation goes on to stress the idea of "rebellion", and repeatedly exhort the reader to obey, to be ruled, to submit. I'm sure you can see how the analogy suggests itself.
I'm not saying that my analogy is a fair summary of Christianity. But it's a fair summary of my reaction to the presentation.