Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@The Anointed,

The Anointed wrote:

Correct! The demons have more sense than the atheists. The demons know that God exists and they know their ultimate fate and they shudder and tremble at the thought of it.

YOU do not KNOW that any gods exist. YOU blindly guess that one god exists...and that it is your god...the one described in that "scripture" you blindly guess to be a description of that god...of what pleases it and what offends it.

Oh, well. Better than Alice in Wonderland, I guess...although maybe not.

Thanks again for you help.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

YOU do not KNOW that any gods exist.

I wish I got a vote on what I know. But that's life, Frank knows.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

ill take that as a no ,frank.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Correction! We do not know that anything DOES NOT exist. One of the great philosophical problems is how to disprove something's existence.

The only way that seems to work is when a group tells you up and down that something exists, they have a clear secret agenda, and if pressured at gunpoint they admit the deception.

Btw, this does not work for Christianity. Christians often give up a high-paying job to follow Jesus, sometimes being tortured or killed (this tends to happen in less developed countries). What is the hidden agenda, where is the hard sell, and where is the sudden admission of falsehood?

We do have proof that God or gods exist.
https://www.pravmir.com/top-10-common-atheist-arguments-fail/
It's like this, there is proof of God's existence immediately, in the same way there's proof of civilization. It would be far more difficult to say civilization (or God) does not exist as you would have to disprove everything to the contrary. For example, just to name one, how do you exist. Or here's another, unlike many theists, I don't object to evolution. What is involved in making a species that evolves? Quite a bit actually.

Jesus says this bizarre saying about exorcising a spirit, having a house swept clean, and having a bunch of evil spirits move in. This is particularly strange until you understand that atheists are the clean-swept house. And like the house evil visitors tell them lies about God. The demons possessing an atheist tell them such things are superstitions of the past. But the cognitive dissonance is a pretty clear sign of mental confusion.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Correction! We do not know that anything DOES NOT exist. One of the great philosophical problems is how to disprove something's existence.

The only way that seems to work is when a group tells you up and down that something exists, they have a clear secret agenda, and if pressured at gunpoint they admit the deception.

Btw, this does not work for Christianity. Christians often give up a high-paying job to follow Jesus, sometimes being tortured or killed (this tends to happen in less developed countries). What is the hidden agenda, where is the hard sell, and where is the sudden admission of falsehood?

We do have proof that God or gods exist.
https://www.pravmir.com/top-10-common-atheist-arguments-fail/
It's like this, there is proof of God's existence immediately, in the same way there's proof of civilization. It would be far more difficult to say civilization (or God) does not exist as you would have to disprove everything to the contrary. For example, just to name one, how do you exist. Or here's another, unlike many theists, I don't object to evolution. What is involved in making a species that evolves? Quite a bit actually.

Jesus says this bizarre saying about exorcising a spirit, having a house swept clean, and having a bunch of evil spirits move in. This is particularly strange until you understand that atheists are the clean-swept house. And like the house evil visitors tell them lies about God. The demons possessing an atheist tell them such things are superstitions of the past. But the cognitive dissonance is a pretty clear sign of mental confusion.

Nonsense!

You are asserting that a god exists. The full burden of proof falls on you.

I am not asserting that no gods exist.

I have no idea if any gods exist or if no gods exist.

Neither do you. The real difference between us is that I acknowledge that I do not know...and you do not.

The bullshit about "...proof of God's existence immediately, in the same way there's proof of civilization" is so lacking, I am surprised anyone would even attempt to sell it.

There may be gods. There may be only one god. That god may be the abomination from the Bible.

And of course, there may be no gods.

Stop kidding yourself that it is self-evident. (I say the same thing to people who claim it is self-evident that there are no gods.)

Stop kidding yourself that ANYTHING suggests it is more likely that there is at least one god...than that there are no gods. (I say that same thing to people who suggest it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.)

Every indication is that one cannot come to "There is at least one god"; It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none; There are no gods; or It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...using logic, reason, science, or math.

Every indication is that it just cannot be done.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Wrong!

Asserting a God exists is like asserting the sky is blue. You do not need to prove this because it is self-evident.

God is creator of the universe, according to religious text. Universe exists? Don't need to prove this.

God is creator of nature, according to religious text. Nature exists? Don't need to prove this.

Why not? Because these are definitional. God = creator of (whatever)

What burden of proof there may be involved is "Was God the creator, or was it someone else?" But you see, I do not care about this. If someone or something is the creator of such things, I shall call that person, force, or concept God. Even if such is actually more like the Force.

But, you say, "the universe doesn't require a creator." That assertion requires burden of proof.

You see this?

https://s3.dutchcrafters.com/product-images/600-600/pid_49084-Amish-2-Straightback-Chair--790.jpg

This is called a chair.

If you can prove to me that an item, any item, can spontaneously be created, then I see no reason not to accept this bullshit assertion that the universe doesn't require a creator. Until that is the case, nope, you don't get to pass the buck. This chair is made by DutchCrafters.

While you are correct in stating an agnostic position (we do not know whether it was a classically defined deity, or something entirely different), we do know that whatever cause is responsible for creation of nature or the universe is in fact responsible. There is no such thing as uncaused creation.

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

I agree that definitive proof is not needed one way or the other.It’s not given anyway.If definitive proof is not going to be given then the only other route is logic output possibilities which brings us to half logic or full logic.

As far as creation is concerned……..something causes the expansion/contraction of the universe .Modern day science can’t get beyond black holes and singularities.There is clearly a controlling force that causes this expansion/contraction (TOGGLING).

All sciences are interconnected..,.therefore we should experience toggling in the mind …and guess what …we do……

A better understanding of consciousness is needed.

PRESENCE observes the expansion/contraction and is independent from it.

2 Replies

@Jasper10,

Most present modern day science and individuals thinking/reasoning can’t get beyond the 4 off logic output “toggling” (expansion/contraction) possibilities it would appear and is therefore trapped on the “hamsters wheel”.

One can have very complicated equations if you wish but 0 and 1 do the job just as well.

HaHa.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Wrong!

Asserting a God exists is like asserting the sky is blue. You do not need to prove this because it is self-evident.

God is creator of the universe, according to religious text. Universe exists? Don't need to prove this.

God is creator of nature, according to religious text. Nature exists? Don't need to prove this.

Why not? Because these are definitional. God = creator of (whatever)

What burden of proof there may be involved is "Was God the creator, or was it someone else?" But you see, I do not care about this. If someone or something is the creator of such things, I shall call that person, force, or concept God. Even if such is actually more like the Force.

But, you say, "the universe doesn't require a creator." That assertion requires burden of proof.

You see this?

This is called a chair.

If you can prove to me that an item, any item, can spontaneously be created, then I see no reason not to accept this bullshit assertion that the universe doesn't require a creator. Until that is the case, nope, you don't get to pass the buck. This chair is made by DutchCrafters.

While you are correct in stating an agnostic position (we do not know whether it was a classically defined deity, or something entirely different), we do know that whatever cause is responsible for creation of nature or the universe is in fact responsible. There is no such thing as uncaused creation.

If you think you can assert that a god exists...and have no burden of proof to bear...you are just not intelligent enough for a discussion like this.

Have you seen any good movies lately. Perhaps we can talk about that.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

When we come to the realisation, which is, that which can never be created and can never be destroyed has become this generation of the universe and all the life forms herein and is the collective consciousness of all that the eternal, which has neither beginning or end, has become, we have no need of a better understanding of consciousness.

“Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating; each atom is like a wobbly spinning top that radiates energy. Because each atom has its own specific energy signature (wobble), assemblies of atoms (molecules) collectively radiate their own identifying energy patterns.

Excerpts from the following link.

https://deghys.wordpress.com/2016/08/02/nothing-is-solid-everything-is-energy-scientists-explain-the-world-of-quantum-physics/

If you observe the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of “INVISIBLE ENERGY”, not tangible matter.

Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like "A GREAT THOUGHT" than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

The GREAT THOUGHT is the collective consciousness of all that it has become.

It is the divine reality of the universe, the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return at the close of each period of universal activity.

1 Reply

@The Anointed,

Hey...you don't have to convince me that there is a connection between the cosmos;the quantum and the body/mind....all sciences are interconnected is my view.

I'm aware of the "toggling" principles in all three.How does matter stick together if there isn't balanced toggling forces at play?

My view is that there are clearly electromechanical forces in the cosmos...at the quantum level and in the physical body including the biological computer brain which is connected to consciousness types.

Black holes and singularities aren't the start of everything.My view is that there isn't a start or an end as you say...…the whole system appears to be all encompassing and balanced and caters for all belief systems..... Amazing….

Most modern day science is being left behind because it can't or wont transition to the new era of science of PRESENCE/SELF and CONSCIOUSNESS types.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

I could say that the chair I built had a beginning, (As a chair) although all that I built it from has always existed in one form or another, but the chair itself which I later burned and reduced it to ashes, still exists in spacetime.

The same as every generation of the universe is still out there in their own position in spacetime and can be visited by a fourth dimensional being.

And when referring to the fourth dimension, I am speaking of the Minkowskian notion of time as being the fourth dimension. As in the fact that we can move forward and backward, [One dimension], sideways, [Two dimensions], up and down, [Three dimensions], and through time; [Four dimensions], and not that which is called 4- dimension Euclidean space.

There is no such thing as the dead past, to 'The son of Man' who, unlike his parent, 'The Lord of creatures', is the Lord of space and time.

For Just as mankind, 'The Lord of Creatures' had developed within the bodies of our animal ancestors, the 'Son of Man' who, according to our erroneous concept of one directional time, is still currently developing within the pregnant and sinful androgynous body of EVE= mankind , who she has become, and yet many are they, who have received a visitation from He, who Eve was prophesied to bear, even while still in the Garden of Eden.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

New Testament Paul and Peter insisted that Christian slaves be obedient to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Tim. 6:1–2; 1 Pet. 2:18–21) and not seek freedom just because of conversion (1 Cor. 7:20–22). Masters were urged to be kind (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Slave trading was condemned (1 Tim. 1:10). Paul claimed that in Christ human status was unimportant (Gal. 3:28). But neither Jesus nor the apostles condemned slavery. Slavery was so much a part of their society that to call for abolition would have resulted in violence and bloodshed. Rather, Jesus and the apostles set forth principles of human dignity and equality that eventually led to abolition.

James A. Brooks, “Slave, Servant,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1511.

1 Reply

@joshhuntnm,

joshhuntnm wrote:

New Testament Paul and Peter insisted that Christian slaves be obedient to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1 Tim. 6:1–2; 1 Pet. 2:18–21) and not seek freedom just because of conversion (1 Cor. 7:20–22). Masters were urged to be kind (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Slave trading was condemned (1 Tim. 1:10). Paul claimed that in Christ human status was unimportant (Gal. 3:28). But neither Jesus nor the apostles condemned slavery. Slavery was so much a part of their society that to call for abolition would have resulted in violence and bloodshed. Rather, Jesus and the apostles set forth principles of human dignity and equality that eventually led to abolition.

James A. Brooks, “Slave, Servant,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1511.

Okay, Josh...let's agree to that.

But the question remains, "Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?"

He condemned hypocrisy, greed, pride, disobedience...and they were all a part of society.

And perhaps a more important question: Why do you suppose the god Jesus worshiped did not specifically condemn slavery?

Why do you suppose the god Jesus worshiped specifically mention that it was okay with it for people to own slaves?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hey Frank how are ya?
I’ve sort of followed this thread from the sidelines, but something just occurred to me..,
If you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus (I’m assuming you believe he was simply a good man if he existed), why can’t the answer to your question just be that he never condemned slavery because he was a flawed human being who made an error?

Now, if you put the divinity of Jesus under the umbrella of your agnosticism I guess you could just say “IF he existed and IF he was God in the flesh, then why didn’t he etc.”

So what’s your story there Frank old shoe?

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Hey Frank how are ya?
I’ve sort of followed this thread from the sidelines, but something just occurred to me..,
If you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus (I’m assuming you believe he was simply a good man if he existed), why can’t the answer to your question just be that he never condemned slavery because he was a flawed human being who made an error?

Now, if you put the divinity of Jesus under the umbrella of your agnosticism I guess you could just say “IF he existed and IF he was God in the flesh, then why didn’t he etc.”

So what’s your story there Frank old shoe?

I've stated my position several times in this thread, Snood.

And my position holds whether Jesus was divine or not.

Jesus, as a divine being, did not condemn slavery, because his father, GOD, said very clearly that there was nothing whatever wrong with slavery.

Jesus, as just a human non-divine itinerant preacher, did not condemn slavery, because the god he worshiped said very clearly that there was nothing whatever wrong with slavery.

So that's my story...and I am sticking with it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Or maybe the interested parties concerned with what went in the Bible kept anti slavery comments out.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If you think you can assert that a god exists...and have no burden of proof to bear...you are just not intelligent enough for a discussion like this.

You are correct, I do not have a burden of proof to bear. Because I am not bearing the burden of proof. You are.

You say that God does not exist. As far as you are concerned, I already know God exists, and I do not have to convince you of anything. It is you making the claim, but rather than defending the claim, you are passing the buck.

For the record, I have already established that an uncreated creation is implausible. So I've already poked one rather large hole in this idea. Yet, you have nothing aside from ad hominem. So, your move.

Quote:

Atheists claim they have nothing to prove. They simply lack a belief in God, which means they don’t shoulder a burden of proof. After all, no one needs to prove why they don’t believe in Santa Claus. Only the person who posits that Santa Claus (or some other being) exists is responsible for giving evidence for their view. Atheists, allegedly, can sit back and watch Christians and other theists struggle to defend their belief.

While it’s true that atheists don’t have to prove the absence of God, they’re hardly off the hook when it comes to making sense of their position. If they don’t believe in God, their view entails at least three incredible assertions that require a lot of explaining.

#1: They need to explain how the universe came into existence by itself.
#2: They need to explain how free will can exist if humans are entirely physical objects.
#3: They need to explain where morals come from.

https://www.str.org/w/atheism-s-burden-of-proof

There are actually more than the article presented.

#4 They need to explain what exactly is the mechanism of life in the absence of things like soul or spirit.
#5 They need to explain how millions of other planets have no life to speak of at all, but we have millions of species. Obviously, the conditions for life are very very complicated. How then is Earth able to sustain so many different types without intervention?
#6 They probably have to sort out how exactly it is that they "know" there isn't a God. Have you searched everywhere?

Lastly, how does one prove a god exists? Well, let's start with polytheism. If I make a god of rain, let's call him Imadogari, I can prove there is rain. So while I cannot prove Imadogari is the cause of this rain, especially since I made him up, I can prove by causal link that it is reasonable to believe in a rain god. That is, every time it rains or whatever, I have the presence of this god, a sign that maybe he exists. Same with a sun god, nature god, sky god, or God himself. Now, is it a disproof if I pray for rain, and instead don't get it? Not at all! Imadogari might be some needy twit that only responds to certain offerings, or he might answer only some prayers, or he might ignore prayers entirely and do as he pleases. The "results on demand" standard alone does not prove or disprove a god. But having rain is sufficient to agree that perhaps someone out there is in charge of rain. So, because you personally didn't get a pony for Christmas, I also assume you stopped believing in Santa. Unfortunately, God (and gods) can have any number of reasons not to grant your request, including "Later, I have a better gift in store" or "You've been a piece of **** lately, and I want you to learn that other people have prayers too."

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

You say that God does not exist. As far as you are concerned, I already know God exists, and I do not have to convince you of anything. It is you making the claim, but rather than defending the claim, you are passing the buck.

Excuse me, but Frank has never said that in long as he's been on A2K.

3 Replies

@roger,

All Frank does is say you guess I guess we all guess for the last thirty years or so.

1 Reply

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know