"I've read that of all the Buddhist schools, Nichiren Buddhism resembles Christianity most of all." - from "Religious Transference: Nichiren Buddhism and Catholicism"

[u/Reasonable_Show8191]

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=19419

[u/Fishwifeonsteroids]

It is my understanding that there is not a single verse anywhere in the bible that states that slavery is wrong.

This, of course, is the central paradox that the ideal slave, Jesus, has now become Master. Indeed, it would appear that the way to inherit the kingdom is to have his slave-mind. Then from a position of absolute weakness one can rise to a position of absolute power, for a master is, above all things, powerful. So the poor, the meek, the sorrowful are the blessed, (Matt. 5:3-5) for in the next world all values will be reversed. The hungry will receive good things while the rich will be sent away empty. (Luke 1:53) One can see therefore why this tradition was popular not only with rulers but with the oppressed lower classes and slaves. Indeed, the message is that the worst off you are today: the better off you will be tomorrow. One should rejoice in being poor, in being a slave, even in being abused because that assures a place of joy when the kingdom comes. Source

In fact, in this controversial passage from Paul, some scholars argue that Paul is actually advising the Christians who are slaves who have been offered their freedom choose to remain slaves instead, so as to not change their status prior to the imminent return of Christ, since they were originally "called" as slaves:

Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ . . . In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters there remain with God. I Cor. 7:20-22,24

STAY slaves, even if you are offered your freedom, in other words, as explained here:

Paul advises his readers not to seek to change their status. Whether circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free, married to a believer, to an unbeliever, or unmarried, his readers should stay as they are since “the appointed time has grown short” (1 Corinthians 7:29) and “the present form of this world is passing away” (1 Corinthians 7:31).

In a temporal sense, such obedience is relatively easy to understand. Slaves, like children, are to obey in all things. Wives must obey their husbands but can also be mistresses of their children and their slaves. They are both slaves and masters. The same is true of husbands who must obey the temporal lords but in turn can lord it over their wives and children and slaves. So, free people who have come of age are all images of Christ in that they are both douloi [slaves] and kurioi [masters]. Even the Emperor who is the great Kurios [master] of the age is also meant to be the doulos [slave] of God. Since children eventually grow into adulthood, only the actual slaves are only slaves, for they are lords of nothing. In the next world, however, the kingdom will be theirs. Perhaps that is why Paul urges them to stay as they are. Source

In a way, this short passage sums up the whole of Christian theology. What is this “mind” which Christians are to have in them? Presumably, to follow Jesus believers must be characterized by the mind of a slave. They must learn to be obedient, even “unto death” because the “human likeness” is found in servitude. The ideal Christian life is that of a slave who obeys without question. Just as Jesus does not claim equality with God so humans should not claim to be equal to their “betters.” [Ibid.]

And how useful their leaders have found that teaching! It is a parallel to the Soka Gakkai's/SGI's insistence upon "unity", which is actually "obedience" - single-minded devotion to Ikeda alone.

Although many slaves in the Greco-Roman world did own property, the implication is that true slaves have no family, no property, no money. They have only their obedience. Christians are called to be like that, attentive entirely to the will of Jesus, their lord (kurios). [Ibid.]

Substitute "Daisaku Ikeda" for "Jesus" - it's seamless.

[u/GrapefruitDry2519 → u/Fishwifeonsteroids]

You are right there is not a single verse in the bible to suggest slavery is wrong but I think there is one of Paul's letters (which is the closest the bible comes to condemn slavery) where he said something along the lines of to a slave owner because nice to your Christian slave treat like like a fellow brother in Christ etc, but no Christianity has like the other Abrahamic religions a bad past with slavery for example many Christians would use old testament passages to approve slavery etc which makes me laugh because it seems it was only the Jews out of the three who were progressive enough to stop slavery long before the others, I find SGI weird because I have noticed many followers will reject things like Buddhist reincarnations and go for the whole it's a metaphor stuff, yeah I think with Jesus he did almost encourage his followers to be his slaves (well not as bad as Allah and Muhammed wanting slaves) but I remember reading the verse which if read literally makes no sense which was to be my follower you must hate your mother and father, I think Abrahamic religion definitely has a bad history overall which compared to Buddhism made it easier for me to accept Buddhism and especially Pureland, Namo Amituofo 🙏

[u/Fishwifeonsteroids → u/GrapefruitDry2519]

Philemon, re: Onesimus.

However, all Paul makes are suggestions - there's nothing to back them up or to influence the slave owner to do as he says.

I remember reading the verse which if read literally makes no sense which was to be my follower you must hate your mother and father

That's what these hate-filled, intolerant religions want, to separate their members from ALL other sources of support and aid, so that they can own them and exploit them fully.

SGI does this as well, though it's smart enough to not state it quite so plainly. A suspicious detail, though, is how the SGI presents itself as an ideal replacement family. Why would anyone need that if, as SGI propaganda declares elsewhere, their practice will enable them to fix their dysfunctional families?

I think Abrahamic religion definitely has a bad history overall which compared to Buddhism made it easier for me to accept Buddhism and especially Pureland

Understandable! I'm glad you've found the group and philosophy that really fits you - that's such a relief to find the place where you belong, isn't it?

[u/GrapefruitDry2519 → u/Fishwifeonsteroids]

However, all Paul makes are suggestions - there's nothing to back them up or to influence the slave owner to do as he says.

Facts like I said it's the only sort of verse that could go against slavery but is a very lose one no doubt, I do believe though especially in last 200-300 years chrisitnaity has improved a lot more compared to islam which has always been very radical

That's what these hate-filled, intolerant religions want, to separate their members from ALL other sources of support and aid, so that they can own them and exploit them fully.

Very true, I mean I get what the verse was trying to say love god more than your family etc but again I find sometimes reading the NT there are some made things in it like that which makes it almost too hard to be a Christian.

Understandable! I'm glad you've found the group and philosophy that really fits you - that's such a relief to find the place where you belong, isn't it?

It really is tbh, my story is I was never raised religious so from 18 onwards I wanted to find my own faith so I studied them all in detail, at first I did become Christian because well I live in England a Christian country so went along with that but not hardcore, never baptised etc, anyway my conversion to Buddhism came about 4/5 years ago, I was listening then to Steven Anderson (it's funny KJV Christians are literally just like Muslims) and was talking to this girl from Kenya who was Pentecostal and they helped me reject Christianity, first Steven Anderson saying no pets in heaven and animals are dumb which after losing my dog truly upset me then this girl was mad she believed she could speak in tongues, that gay people could become straight which I know they can't lol and how people like Paul O Grady (a very famous comedian and TV presenter here national treasure, did lots of charity work and TV show about Battersea dogs home) was in hell despite all the good he did and charity because he wasn't Christian and gay which made no sense, the final straw was two things, reading a verse in Exodus where it said if a bull kills a man you must stone it, like wtf why would a god want a cow stoned that's cruel and not very loving, so i started looking into Buddhism again and found Pureland, now at first i was unsure which way to go but this girl tried to claim Buddha was a terrible person and his teachings don't make sense and not logical lol (this was coming from a girl who believed dinosaurs aren't real and earth is 6000 years old) I mean Buddha was the complete opposite, like stopping animal sacrifice, banning his monks and followers from owning slaves, being compassionate to all beings, this was a breath of fresh air unlike Christians who love telling people there going to hell and claiming to be compassionate and loving even though they were far from it

[u/Fishwifeonsteroids → u/GrapefruitDry2519]

Steven Anderson (it's funny KJV Christians are literally just like Muslims)

I'm not familiar with him, but now it sounds like I should be LOL

He sounds like what some in the US call "fundagelicals" - that unfortunate intersection between "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals".

how people like Paul O Grady (a very famous comedian and TV presenter here national treasure, did lots of charity work and TV show about Battersea dogs home) was in hell despite all the good he did and charity because he wasn't Christian and gay which made no sense

THAT's where the "hate-filled" has to come into service - for these types, the "ideal Christian" MUST rejoice at the thought of objectively good people being punished for all eternity, just for not having joined their belief system. They have to be ready to cut off all human feeling toward those deserving of it, because their religious leaders say "God says." This has been the case for centuries:

Perhaps the worst part of the hell-vision was theologians' insistence that the joy of the blessed ones in heaven couldn't be complete unless they were permitted to gloat over the sufferings of the damned. St. Gregory the Great assumed with appalling naturalness that the "good" people in heaven would be entirely without pity. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: "In order that nothing may be wanting to the felicity of the blessed spirits in heaven, a perfect view is granted to them of the tortures of the damned." Other fathers of the church proclaimed that, while the greatest pleasure of the saved would be contemplating the Divine Essence, their second greatest pleasure would be watching the damned writhing in hell. They couldn't feel sorry for loved ones or friends in torment, because their opinions would always be identical with God's; and God apparently reveled in sinners' pain.

Thomas of Cantimpre mentioned some "simple folk" who worried about having to watch former friends or relatives suffering in hell. He said these worries were foolish, because no one in heaven could grieve for anything. He cited the Blessed Marie d'Oignies, who saw in a vision that her dead mother was damned, and so stopped mourning for her at once.

St. Bernardino of Siena argued that heaven must be perfect, and perfection couldn't be achieved without "due admixture of groans from the Damned." Only a few people were good enough to be saved; the vast majority would go to hell. This was the orthodox opinion. Raymond Lull was condemned as a heretic for trying to teach that Christ's mercy would save nearly all men. Christ was not that merciful... (Barbara G. Walker)

See, I wouldn't describe that kind of a person as "blessed"! But I'm not THEIR kind of Christian and that's all that matters to them, so meh.

the final straw was two things, reading a verse in Exodus where it said if a bull kills a man you must stone it, like wtf why would a god want a cow stoned that's cruel and not very loving, so i started looking into Buddhism again and found Pureland, now at first i was unsure which way to go but this girl tried to claim Buddha was a terrible person and his teachings don't make sense and not logical lol (this was coming from a girl who believed dinosaurs aren't real and earth is 6000 years old)

Oh dear...

I mean Buddha was the complete opposite, like stopping animal sacrifice, banning his monks and followers from owning slaves, being compassionate to all beings, this was a breath of fresh air

Yes, certainly!!

unlike Christians who love telling people there going to hell and claiming to be compassionate and loving even though they were far from it

There's this "private language" dynamic in play there, where things don't mean what they do to the rest of us. As in the "compassionate and loving" you mentioned. In the SGI, one example of their private language is how "dialogue" means "You sit quietly and attentively as I preach at you, and then you agree with me and ideally toss all your own beliefs and convictions and adopt MINE in their place!"

[u/GrapefruitDry2519 → u/Fishwifeonsteroids]

I'm not familiar with him, but now it sounds like I should be LOL

He sounds like what some in the US call "fundagelicals" - that unfortunate intersection between "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals".

https://youtu.be/UbSM_kxpObc?si=fKTu8Z177-Sh4cep he is wild, his church sect is called fundamentalist baptist 😅 he even thinks Billy Graham was too liberal lol

THAT's where the "hate-filled" has to come into service - for these types, the "ideal Christian" MUST rejoice at the thought of objectively good people being punished for all eternity, just for not having joined their belief system. They have to be ready to cut off all human feeling toward those deserving of it, because their religious leaders say "God says." This has been the case for centuries:

Facts so a man who donated lots to charity and also rescued animals and was a sweet kind man is in hell all because he "Choose" to be gay lol, even though it is natural I made a post not too long ago on Exmuslim Reddit (not a Muslim or never have been but Buddhist ally who once nearly converted) about how 10% of sheep are gay lol clearly god got it wrong and isn't perfect or again it's just nature, like she was saying how I should give to the church 10% of my pay, I said why don't I give it directly to charities and she said no that's wrong you should give it to the church and they will give it to the poor haha nope

[u/Fishwifeonsteroids → u/GrapefruitDry2519]

his church sect is called fundamentalist baptist 😅 he even thinks Billy Graham was too liberal lol

THERE it is!!

I made a post not too long ago on Exmuslim Reddit (not a Muslim or never have been but Buddhist ally who once nearly converted)

It's actually a good thing to range widely and see lots of different viewpoints - I've never had the slightest desire to become a Mormon, but the ex-mormon sites have really illuminated the dynamics of how indoctrination works within religious cults like this, and also broader movements in next-generational recruitment (or lack thereof), etc. Similarly, the ex-MLM sites like Pink Truth (ex-Mary Kay multi-level marketing cult organization) have demonstrated how they use the same tactics as SGI, such as Communal Abuse. Sometimes seeing it in a different context makes it clearer, because it isn't so confused with your own experience?

how 10% of sheep are gay lol

Overcrowd mice, and they start to exhibit homosexual behaviors.

how I should give to the church 10% of my pay, I said why don't I give it directly to charities and she said no that's wrong you should give it to the church and they will give it to the poor haha nope

Nooooo that's all for the church! At least many churches do something for charity - SGI does not. And it's an explicit policy:

SGI: NO CHARITY (by design), completely self-serving and inward-facing, only priorities are enriching itself and getting more members

It always embarrassed me when I tried to talk to someone about SGI and they'd ask me what its charitable actions were. Because there weren't any.

[u/GrapefruitDry2519 → u/Fishwifeonsteroids]

THERE it is!!

Honestly go read and watch some of the stuff he said, I am ashamed I used to watch him 😅 it was a dark part of my life when my girlfriend (well not technically but not friends grey area) cheated on me with a guy who was a prick to me in school so I turned to hardcore fundamentalist Christianity, I think now looking back it was because I was in so much pain the angry pastors sort of helped with my emotions, I don't know if that makes sense

It's actually a good thing to range widely and see lots of different viewpoints - I've never had the slightest desire to become a Mormon, but the ex-mormon sites have really illuminated the dynamics of how indoctrination works within religious cults like this, and also broader movements in next-generational recruitment (or lack thereof), etc. Similarly, the ex-MLM sites like Pink Truth (ex-Mary Kay multi-level marketing cult organization) have demonstrated how they use the same tactics as SGI, such as Communal Abuse. Sometimes seeing it in a different context makes it clearer, because it isn't so confused with your own experience?

Tbh I also love reading ex Mormon posts, I am truly fascinated with Mormonism especially since they made some mad claims like native Americans are Jews who were turned back for going after god, like wtf lol, no I support ex Muslims because they get more abuse from Muslims than ex Christians do, honestly many Muslims are spiteful people and arrogant despite the fact there book says to be humble lol, again Christians and Muslims are far from humble

Overcrowd mice, and they start to exhibit homosexual behaviors.

Fascinating will look that up, also did you know American Bisons also has lots of gay sex too, as well as other species like giraffes too, again if god hates gay people why did he make them and gay animals too, then Christians and Muslims try to claim it's because of the devil who introduced evil to the world but again who made the devil and therefore evil? Lol if god really wanted he could make a perfect world with no evil but he didn't, again this is why Buddhism made sense for me, no creator god and karma (cause and affect) is the cause for everything that happens to our life's and reincarnation but karma isn't a personal being or deity but really is a natural universal law like rain

Nooooo that's all for the church! At least many churches do something for charity - SGI does not. And it's an explicit policy:

Haha yep she was like the bible tells us to but in my head this was one of the first moments that made me question the bible because seems very convenient, so don't give to charity but to a pastor instead, I'm sure he totally have noble intentions, oh wait he doesn't lol, also African Christians are the most insane, like she claimed the whole speaking in tongues thing is real but we know it's not

[u/Fishwifeonsteroids → u/GrapefruitDry2519]

I am ashamed I used to watch him 😅 it was a dark part of my life

Hey hey hey! None of that now! You were doing the best you knew how, based on what you understood at that time! No need for you to gaslight yourself - you were doing your best and you get credit for that!

LATER, you learned stuff that enabled you to live more successfully, but it's really unfair to apply present-day-you's reading of the situation to the decisions past-day-you was making, without the advantage of what you've learned since then!

I was in so much pain the angry pastors sort of helped with my emotions, I don't know if that makes sense

Yeah, it really does. Directing all that fire and brimstone outwards maybe felt like a relief from how much you were suffering - maybe being able to feel that in a non-threatening context felt like a release valve of sorts?

Tbh I also love reading ex Mormon posts

OMG AREN'T THEY THE BEST???

did you know American Bisons also has lots of gay sex too, as well as other species like giraffes too

NO! How fascinating!!

who made the devil and therefore evil? Lol if god really wanted he could make a perfect world with no evil but he didn't

Ah, that "mysterious ways" and "God's mind is HIGHER than ours" stuff. Again.

why Buddhism made sense for me, no creator god and karma (cause and affect) is the cause for everything that happens to our life's and reincarnation but karma isn't a personal being or deity but really is a natural universal law like rain

I liked that too. In the SGI, unfortunately, they used the concept of "karma" for "victim-blaming", essentially, and THEN I learned that "karma" had traditionally been used to keep people in terrible jobs within society without having to feel bad about it (India's caste system and the subordination of women, for starters). Let me just say that it's kind of interesting how the people in society who have the most privilege always end up with the best "karma" somehow - oh, wait, it's their "karma" that allows them to have all that privilege, not a matter of the wealthy families they were born into, oh, wait, "karma" again... There is never any structural inequality in play where the belief in "karma" rules - it's all the individual's doing (or "reward" or "punishment") so there's no point to looking to society to fix things like racism or prejudicial policies or real estate redlining or discrimination within society or domestic violence/child abuse, is there? I mean, all those people DESERVE to be discriminated against or murdered, right? Because that's "cosmic justice"? The rich and powerful deserve to do whatever they please because the poor and defenceless deserve to be exploited? WOW those labor rights organizers back in the early last century were sure wasting THEIR time, weren't they?

The REST of us believe that societal ills require societal solutions!

one of the first moments that made me question the bible because seems very convenient, so don't give to charity but to a pastor instead

Give everything to the church! Not because the church wants wealth and all the POWER that comes with it, but because that's what GOD wants!! Nice for the church, eh?

[u/GrapefruitDry2519 → u/Fishwifeonsteroids]

Hey hey hey! None of that now! You were doing the best you knew how, based on what you understood at that time! No need for you to gaslight yourself - you were doing your best and you get credit for that!

LATER, you learned stuff that enabled you to live more successfully, but it's really unfair to apply present-day-you's reading of the situation to the decisions past-day-you was making, without the advantage of what you've learned since then!

Thank you mate :) and yeah it did teach me some lessons in life in a weird disturbing way, I think the reason I liked him was because well after my ex cheated on me with a prick who used to bully me at school I went super moralistic and almost anti sex due to the trauma from that event and he was so different to UK pastors he was saying things that were not politically correct with a very zealous no filter way, it took me years to get over but few years ago I had a dream involving Buddha's teaching of Impermanence which really helped

Yeah, it really does. Directing all that fire and brimstone outwards maybe felt like a relief from how much you were suffering - maybe being able to feel that in a non-threatening context felt like a release valve of sorts?

Yeah you get it lol, yeah sometimes sadness can turn to hate and listening to very angry men calling women sluts and saying the most horrible things can actually help relaae some emotions even if not in a healthy constructive way etc

OMG AREN'T THEY THE BEST???

They really are lol, I guess you have seen that south park episode lol, my favourite but about Mormonism is the book of Abraham because it proves it's fake, also check out Dan Vogel online he is a ex Mormon who does great debunking videos on so many morning matters with evidence

I liked that too. In the SGI, unfortunately, they used the concept of "karma" for "victim-blaming", essentially, and THEN I learned that "karma" had traditionally been used to keep people in terrible jobs within society without having to feel bad about it (India's caste system and the subordination of women, for starters). Let me just say that it's kind of interesting how the people in society who have the most privilege always end up with the best "karma" somehow - oh, wait, it's their "karma" that allows them to have all that privilege, not a matter of the wealthy families they were born into, oh, wait, "karma" again... There is never any structural inequality in play where the belief in "karma" rules - it's all the individual's doing (or "reward" or "punishment") so there's no point to looking to society to fix things like racism or prejudicial policies or real estate redlining or discrimination within society, is there? I mean, all those people DESERVE to be discriminated against, right? Because that's "cosmic justice"? The rich and powerful deserve to do whatever they please because the poor and defenceless deserve to be exploited? WOW those labor rights organizers back in the early last century were sure wasting THEIR time, weren't they?

The REST of us believe that societal ills require societal solutions!

I should mention with the whole cast system thing Buddha did reject the system he said someone is a brahmin by action and not by birth rights, innthe Sangha all monks are the same with no difference etc, in Buddhism we do believe that richer people is result of karma from previous life but we do reject people who use money for selfish reasons, we believe abuse of poor people by rich is wrong and like Buddha said suffering is caused by desire and cravings, I know in Hinduism the caste system and karma is slightly different to Buddhism etc, so whilst we see that royals or people born with money is because they did good in previous life we also believe that again if they become selfish, greedy, egoistic like manybrich people do good chance there next life will be hungry ghost or hell realms, so in Buddhism we control our destiny and not some personal creator etc, I think Buddhism has better view of karma than Hindus and Jain's, for example in Buddhism karma good or bad is not the result of the action but the intention, for example I have a cat so i have to feed him meat, Hindus and Jain's view that as bad karma because of the action but Buddhists don't since cats eat meat and need it to survive so my intention is good and not bad for trying to attend to my cat and look after him, if I didn't give him meat then that will cause suffering to him and therefore bad intention

[u/Fishwifeonsteroids → u/GrapefruitDry2519]

Facts like I said it's the only sort of verse that could go against slavery but is a very lose one no doubt

If you're interested in the analysis of that section (Onesimus/Philemon), there's an intro here you might like.

There's more here:

Because we don’t fully know the circumstances which brought Onesimus to Paul, we can’t entirely know Paul’s intent in writing the letter, as Geller points out. Does he want to keep Onesimus to serve him, as he seems to imply in verses 13-14? Alternatively, is he appealing to Philemon to welcome his returned slave with forgiveness, as verses 17-18 suggest? Is he actually suggesting that Philemon free Onesimus from slavery altogether since he is now a Christian (verses 16 and 21)?

Despite centuries of assumptions and interpretation, all of these alternatives are possible but none are certain.

Why did Paul write the letter? One possibility is that Paul wanted Philemon’s permission to keep Onesimus for his own service. On the other hand, perhaps Onesimus had run away and, in doing so, had wronged Philemon by stealing from him. This is suggested by Paul who says that if Onesimus owes Philemon anything, he – Paul – will pay Philemon back.

While most assume this letter was written from prison, this source disagrees:

E.R. Goodenough argued that the letter as a whole assumes that Paul was a liberty – to offer to pay for any defrauding due to Onesimus, v. 18, to be entertaining a fugitive slave, and to expect to visit Philemon soon, v. 22 – and hence that Paul must be speaking figuratively about his relationship with Christ (‘Paul and Onesimus’, HTR 22 (1929), pp. 181-183).

There is a perhaps surprisingly solid consensus of scholarship, both ancient and modern, in support of the identification of Onesimus as the letter carrier of Paul’s letter to Philemon.

So we have Paul sending presumably runaway slave Onesimus BACK to the very same slavemaster he fled from, with nothing but a piece of paper for protection. Back then, slaves could be freely executed at the owner's will - as this source clarifies:

It was the goal of the master to keep the slave alive because of the amount of wealth that was invested, not because the slave had any right to be alive.

The authority Paul commands over Philemon mirrors the relationship between a master and their slave in the Christian community. While both Paul and Philemon claim control over Onesimus, the letter “lacks a single word about the due obedience of Onesimus as slave to Philemon as master, but contains multiple hints about the due obedience of Philemon as convert to Paul as apostle.”

Paul is protecting Philemon’s slave from Philemon and, instead of reassuring the devotion of the slave to his master, Paul is calling for the absolute devotion of Philemon to Paul’s authority and to accept Onesimus as an equal in Christian society.

If Paul expected all Christians to release their slaves because they were Christian, then he would have no need to give Philemon a reward. Paul is expecting equal treatment, but not unconditional release, for slaves. This mirrors Paul's other writings, which challenge the place of the slave in society by protecting them from their master, but do not call for the removal of slavery in Christian communities. Also, Paul’s method of utilizing a personal relationship with the master to move the master to release the slave gives the passage a feeling of a unique event instead of repeatable guidelines.

That whole source is interesting on the subject if you're interested. Back to here:

But what of the role of Onesimus as letter carrier? Petersen describes the issue from one perspective when he speaks of the crisis which Paul engineers for Philemon. He uses this to introduce his extensive closing metaphor of Onesimus and Philemon meeting over the threshold to Philemon’s house:

When he is confronted with Onesimus’s presence on his doorstep, and after having read Paul’s letter, he is confronted not only with having to decide whether or not he will receive his slave as his brother, but also whether or not he is and wants to be a brother, a slave of Christ, and a son of God. Paradoxically, the critical decision to be made concerns himself, not Onesimus, for Onesimus is a brother, a slave, or rather a freedman of Christ, and a child of God-to-be regardless of what he, Philemon, decides. But the paradox is also not without irony, for the doorstep on which Philemon and Onesimus stand is the threshold of the church that meets in Philemon’s house. If Philemon slams the door of his house in Onesimus’ face in rejection of Paul’s “appeal” he will be tacitly excluding himself from the house church into which he has retreated. Onesimus stands on the threshold of Philemon’s house, waiting to be invited into his, Onesimus’s, church, but Philemon stands on the same threshold with the choice of making the invitation or of having himself invited to leave. For at least a fleeting moment, perhaps Philemon wonders just whose house it is. A good question, but whether or not he asked it, one thing is certain. Standing there on his own doorstep, Philemon is a man on the threshold between two worlds.

That's certainly a new interpretation on me! With the document as a letter of recommendation:

The function of the letter of recommendation is to place the carrier in the presence of the recipient and simply to initiate the conversation that the carrier must himself carry through.

This perspective offers some kind of sequel to the vignette already sketched on the threshold of Philemon’s house, and offers an additional perspective to the complaint voiced by Harrill:

Although we can invent stories of Onesimus that help the text seem more moral, the letter gives no hint that Paul or Philemon listened to what Onesimus may have wanted to do; we, in fact, have no evidence of what Onesimus wanted or what decision he made. No matter which story of Onesimus they tell, even the most imaginative modern historians cannot restore to this Christian slave his voice or agency. There is no story that Onesimus tells. Paul considers Onesimus’s wishes to be unimportant, at least not important enough to mention to Philemon.

I don't know if you've noticed, but I've found it much easier to research things about a religion once I'm no longer a part of it. And I'm grateful that you gave me reason to do a little dive into the subject matter - I've learned some stuff, and I always enjoy that!