Not only is the story of Onesimus analogous to your example, the multitide of examples of Christian missionaries heading in to persecution to preach the Gospel and love their enemies throughout history is a clear testament to how God uses sending his people in harms way to spread the Gospel (one of the flow on effects of which is seemingly changed societies).
God's plan is hard to understand, doesn't conform to the way we selfish humans would do things. But it is good and it has significatnly changed the world already.
Many good things have been developed, or abolished, because God fearing Christians felt let to take on the challenge.
Sure, many good things have been developed or abolished because non believers have done things, but I am speaking to the motivation here.
These God Fearing Christians act based on thier interpretation of scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit, i.e. God, within them. History is replete with examples.
If god's plan is hard to understand, how do you know it is "good"?
What examples from history do you have?
Matt ,you endevour to view chrstianity through rose coloured glasses ,but does secular history support your opinions?
Religion is behind so many of the major tragedies of humanity and Christianity remains in the for front.
Witch burnings, the Crusades,the Inquisition,the Spanish Conquistadores
(Missionaries).
Spare me the argument that we owe so much of our art and culture to religion; that's a misattribution. The great architecture, paintings, music, and sculpture that poured forth in adulation of saints, deities and their offspring, and the blessed deceased, were commissioned, Well, I thank the mythology for giving me Handel's "Messiah," but that doesn't make up for the suffering, grief, fear, and the millions of dead that need not have been.... sponsored and paid for by those who offered them as sacrifices, penance, homage, and public relations. Those offerings were items of insurance, appeasements, and bribes, to neutralize transgressions or to obtain a better position on line. They were prompted by fear. I agree that we're better off for the wealth of creative work that we're able to share as a result of this apprehension, but I often think of how much better it could have been if the work had been directed to, and designed for, our species — rather than for mythical beings in the sky or under the ground.
Unlike the religious, who have it all cut-and-dried, predigested and served up to them, I'm willing to be shown. But I will not entertain the argument of threats and fear, I will not fall for the "we don't know everything" throw-down, and I haven't the time to argue the endless anecdotal tales of which the faithful are so fond.
GCT:
Superstring theory is hard to understand, does that make it a bad theory?
Well possibly I suppose.
Let's be clear in all this, there is a certain amount of faith involved in being a Christian (just as there is in being an agnostic; its just faith in a different set of metaphysical assumptions).
Obviously I interpret scripture from my metaphysical standpoint and others interpret it from thiers. This does not mean that dialogue is impossible or that it is not possible to persuade people of the efficacy of a particular position, but it does mean that at some point, unless we agree or agree to disagree we will come run squarely into our pretheoretical, presuppositional assumptions about the nature of the universe.
Having said that I will attempt to answer your question.
How do I know Gods plan is good? How do I know sunlight is good? It can burn me, even give me cancer and kill me. But without enough of it I can die (from Vitamin D deficiency) and am more likely to kill myself.
How do I know sunlight is good? There are those scientific reasons, but do they, in the end, let me know that it is good? Not really, they can tell me about it, and it's effects, but they don't tell me it is good and yet I beleive that it is.
I know it is good because I like the effect it has on me and the world around me. I know it is good because I have experienced it. Yes, I am sure there are times when my experience of it might be bad (lost in a desert with no water for example) but generally, based on my experience, it is good and I desire more of it.
How do I know God's plan is good? Well He says it is and I believe him (based on pretheoretical assumptions like I outlined above) but aside from that I know it is good because I have experienced it and seen others experienced it.
I know God's plan is good because I have seen it in action, in my life and in the lives of others.
I am sorry if this is not scientific enough for you but I believe (another or my pretheoretic metaphysical assumptions) that there are quite a few paths to true knowledge and that experience can be one of them.
We can debate epistemology (how we know we know stuff) or Ontology (what there is, in this case what kinds of knowledge there are) but I don't know of any good arguments against experience as a form of, and path too, knowledge.
While we're on the subject, no-one has adequately proven that science is the only path to real knowledge either. Either the criteria are too stringent and thus eliminate science itself (aka logical positivism) or the criteria are too "lose" and let in a whole world of "evils", such as experience, intuition and even the supernatural.
JONBOY - you make a number of good points and rather a few specious ones as well.
I never said that bad things had not happened in the name of religion. I wasn't discussing that so I didn't feel it necessary. Now that you bring it up I'll share my view (briefly, because I have an appointment soon).
"But does secular history support your opinions?"
Yes, I believe it does. The Dr who revolutionised the way we treat leporousy and lepers was a Christian Missionary working in India. The impact he has had on medicine is huge.
The abolitionists in England fought against slavery because of their understanding of scripture. The Red Cross was set up by Christians.
Numerous scientists in history endevoured to understand the world better because of their understanding of scripture (namely that it was created in an orderly fashion). Florence Nightingale revolutionised battlefield medicine, motivated by her Christian beliefs.
I could go on and on.
Certianly bad things have been done from supposedly Christian values. But a whole pile of good things have been from Christian values as well.
Using the good to negate the bad gets you nowhere in deciding if any of this is true or not. People merely use it to justify their pretheoretical assumptions in the first place (as both you and I just have).
"Spare me the argument that we owe so much of our art and culture to religion; that's a misattribution."
You say this but you don't justify it in my opinion. How is it a misattribution, in what way?
Personally I wasn't thinking of art and archtecture when I wrote my original post. Iw as thinking of the examples I cited above.
"Those offerings were items of insurance, appeasements, and bribes, to neutralize transgressions or to obtain a better position on line. They were prompted by fear."
Prove it! This is such a sweeping generalisation that it is almost meaningless. I sometimes write poems about my God (I am not laiming they are high art) and they are not inspired by fear. They are inspired by gratitude, love, adoration and the like.
If you had any understanding of the bible you would see that the whole new testament is against this approach to god:
"Those offerings were items of insurance, appeasements, and bribes, to neutralize transgressions or to obtain a better position on line."
The whole point of Christ coming and dying for our sins was to free us from this kind of bondage (check out the bookof Romans for example). Sure, plenty of Christians still live in bondage but that's because they haven't understood what they have been given and/or because they are not perfect. The point is that the point of Christ, and his relifion, is that living under the kind of law you outline is no longer necessary.
If anyone has taught you otherwise in the past then shame on them. Unfortunately some people teach that we are under that law from the pulpit. But that doesn't make them right.
"but I often think of how much better it could have been if the work had been directed to, and designed for, our species — rather than for mythical beings in the sky or under the ground."
But, the examples I cited above were all for the benefit of our species. 99% of missionaries who go into other cultures go to allieviate human suffering of one kind or another.
I was never referring to art and architecture, I guess I should have been more explicit about that in my inital post. I thought the context of Onesimus and slavery was fairly clear. Sorry.
"Unlike the religious, who have it all cut-and-dried, predigested and served up to them, I'm willing to be shown."
I am not exactly sure what "it" is that has been cut-and-dried, predigested and served to me, could you elaborate.
Also, what are you willing to be shown?
"But I will not entertain the argument of threats and fear, I will not fall for the "we don't know everything" throw-down, and I haven't the time to argue the endless anecdotal tales of which the faithful are so fond."
LOL
First you say that you are willing to be shown (though I am not sure what you are willing to be shown) then you state how it is that you should be shown. Not that I was planning to use arguements of fear or threats or the like, but that is one way to show something.
Also, why is saying "we don't know everything" unacceptable. Do you know everything? If you do I have a whole stack of questions I'd like to ask you 
The simple truth is that not everything has been revealed to us. In fact such complete knowledge is impossible for humans IMO. So why do you demand that I know everything. Why should I know everything about my particular disciplines. Even the most erudite scholar doesn't know everything about their field. So why is it wrong to admit our ignorance when we are ignorant?
You suggest I look at history through rose coloured glasses, you are almost certainly right (though I prefer a greenish tinge, it makes people look like zombies. I wonder what colour your glasses are?
Matt,
First of all, I didn't say that impossible to understand = bad. So, your reference to superstring theory is completely off.
By saying, "God's plan is good," you run into the problem of evil. Your anecdotal defense of it is pretty weak. I wonder if you and those other people are simply begging the question. You assume god is good, so the good things that happen to you are because of god. But, don't bad things also happen to you and your anecdotal evidence? Why do those happen? Are they outside of god's plan? Are they from some other source? That's the problem. You are so willing to assume that god is good that you completely discount the source of evil.
Also, your attempt to bring science into this particular discussion is a red herring. But, since you brought it up, I never claimed that science is the only path to real knowledge. It happens to be the best that I know of for understanding the natural world around us, but that's quite a different claim. And, your last sentence is quite the load of gibberish. I know you are all about claiming that science assumes naturalism, but once again I will have to point out to you that it is an a posteriori assumption, that one is free to hypothesize god all one wants in science, but it will be a non-starter unless someone comes up with a way of testing for god.
Commenting by HaloScan
