Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

micah wrote:

Frank....is your real name George Carlin??
and i still think i answered the question as best as it can be answered....maybe not...

No, my name is not George Carlin, Micah. It is Frank Apisa. :wink:

You did indeed answer the question as best you could.

I disagree with your answer -- and I gave the reasons for my disagreement in my response.

If you would like to respond to my response -- I'll be glad to discuss it further. But so far, you haven't.

For the record, I think the answer I gave to my own question makes more sense than any of the responses I've gotten from you and Defender -- but I honestly am willing to discuss the notions in detail.

I think it is VERY significant that Jesus did not speak out on slavery.

I think it is even more significant that the god of the Bible said that slavery is moral.

Do you want to discuss it?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I disagree with your answer --

how can you disagree? you acknowledged that what i said was correct. perhaps instead of saying you disagree, you should have said, "that answer is not sufficient for me."???

Frank Apisa wrote:

I think the answer I gave to my own question makes more sense than any of the responses I've gotten from you and Defender

i'm sorry....i missed that answer from you...can you repeat it here?

0 Replies

micah wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I disagree with your answer --

how can you disagree? you acknowledged that what i said was correct. perhaps instead of saying you disagree, you should have said, "that answer is not sufficient for me."???

I mentioned that some of the things you said were correct. But I certainly did not say that I agree with your response.

If you read my response to you -- you will see that I carefully pointed out each of the areas with which I had disagreement.

If you want to discuss what I said there, let me know.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I think the answer I gave to my own question makes more sense than any of the responses I've gotten from you and Defender

i'm sorry....i missed that answer from you...can you repeat it here?

Sure!

I said that I think the reason Jesus never spoke out against slavery -- is because he did not think there was anything wrong with slavery. He considered slavery moral. His god told him it was moral.

That is the reason I think Jesus never spoke out against slavery -- because the god he worshipped and prayed to said that slavery was legitimate and moral.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I mentioned that some of the things you said were correct. If you want to discuss what I said there, let me know.

well....i think it pretty much comes down to me being right, and you being wrong. Razz

0 Replies

micah wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

I mentioned that some of the things you said were correct. If you want to discuss what I said there, let me know.

well....i think it pretty much comes down to me being right, and you being wrong.

I figured you would.

But I think it is the other way around. :wink:

0 Replies

To answer the question , Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery in his day?

I wish to predicate my reply, (printing scriptures which answer this),
with this understanding... that Jesus taught us of Spiritual obedience.
He said when the "inside of the cup and platter are clean" then the outside will be fine. (in my words)
He did not come as a Physical 'deliverer' to set men free of their responsibilities and entrapments of this earthly life.
He taught of the morality, goodness and perfection of God the Father, and urged men to pray for the strength to YIELD their 'members' to thoughtful obedience, for when the heart changes; desires change, relationships change, etc.
He came to save them, show them the WAY.

John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved".

Romans 8: 1,2
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

Galations 5: 1
"STAND FAST therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

(a personal note about my own experience: My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has not 'appeared' (ghostly or physically) and taken away my aches, sorrows, disappointments and the evils that have haunted my life here on earth. He has not granted me MIRACULOUS POWER to overcome the actual prophesy HE MADE: ("In this world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.") That would make him a liar, not a prophet.
He has given me JOY in my spirit, for I know He has written my name in His Book of Life. He has made my spirit to rise above the "secular" and and keep the spiritual life ever before me. For this life is even like a mist or vapor... and will be nothing compared to the Glory that will be revealed in us.
I am comforted with these words.

0 Replies

theollady wrote:

To answer the question , Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery in his day?

I wish to predicate my reply, (printing scriptures which answer this),
with this understanding... that Jesus taught us of Spiritual obedience.
He said when the "inside of the cup and platter are clean" then the outside will be fine. (in my words)
He did not come as a Physical 'deliverer' to set men free of their responsibilities and entrapments of this earthly life.
He taught of the morality, goodness and perfection of God the Father, and urged men to pray for the strength to YIELD their 'members' to thoughtful obedience, for when the heart changes; desires change, relationships change, etc.
He came to save them, show them the WAY.

John 3:17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved".

Romans 8: 1,2
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

Galations 5: 1
"STAND FAST therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

(a personal note about my own experience: My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has not 'appeared' (ghostly or physically) and taken away my aches, sorrows, disappointments and the evils that have haunted my life here on earth. He has not granted me MIRACULOUS POWER to overcome the actual prophesy HE MADE: ("In this world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.") That would make him a liar, not a prophet.
He has given me JOY in my spirit, for I know He has written my name in His Book of Life. He has made my spirit to rise above the "secular" and and keep the spiritual life ever before me. For this life is even like a mist or vapor... and will be nothing compared to the Glory that will be revealed in us.
I am comforted with these words.

I understand all that.

But one would think that Jesus would speak up against one the most disgusting practices humans have ever engaged in -- trafficking and ownership of fellow human beings.

Why do you suppose he didn't at least offer a comment or two about how barbaric the practice is?

0 Replies

I had these thoughts in considering Frank's thread question.

Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery?

Because we are all slaves to something. The distinction of the precise, earthly style of slavery is much more grave to humans than to God-- Actually, my understanding is that we should all aspire to be slaves or servants of mankind in Christ's name.

And, because Jesus focused on meeting people where they were (slavery), rather than being the Al Sharpton of Jerusalem. He was telling them how to live within their current situation referencing spirituality; not how unfair life was, referencing politics. Barrabus and others were the political leaders of the day. Jesus would have diluted His reason for living to chime in with political views. But, if you read the Sermon on the Mount, and other examples of his ideal for our personal behavior, any Christian following Jesus' teaching would have treated 'slaves' in the same manner they treat their family. {Which I feel I should clarify would be to free them if they so desired, or pay them an honest wage, and keep a family unit together...sort of negating the term 'slave'.} ---So, there is a place for people like Al--John the Baptist-- but Jesus' role was pure, in my estimation, and was to be unclouded by political issues and the crap that comes with political debate.

Anyway, nice thread, Frank.

Does anyone know details of the attempt to get Jesus' "movement" more political?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, why do you think that God ordered people to be stoned to death for adultery and picking up sticks on the Sabbath, but allowed Jesus to contravene his Law?

Actually Jesus explained your very question to the people who questioned the same thing you did. He reminded them about when David was hungry he went to the temple and ate food he wasn't supposed to and then he asked them what one of them wouldn't go after a sheep if one got away even though it was the sabbath and how was that different than healing on the sabbath.

Jesus tried to justify his own violation of the commandment by shifting attention to others. If I commit adultery, is my behavior excusable because David did too?

My question still stands: Why do you think that God ordered that a man be stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, but allowed Jesus to violate the law?

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Does anyone know details of the attempt to get Jesus' "movement" more political?

I'm afraid you've arrived a few centuries too late for the zenith of the Jesus movement - the Crusades, the subjucation of Natives of countless foriegn shores, the Spanish Inquisition, the stifling of scientific and intellectual progress in Western civilization for 1000 years, etc. You might still be able to jump on the George Bush bandwagon, though. I can see no way that could go wrong.

0 Replies

Ruach wrote:

Regardless of the laws of man , the thoughts of God will remain the same. God never told people to beat slaves. Jesus taught his apostles, Paul included to appeal to people to treat slaves with justice.
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

I think that for the safety of slaves it was not able to be fully challenged until the law of mankind actually spoke against slavery. All slaves could have been put on the path of rebellion to their death.

Do you think that any slave was "safe" from a Bible-thumping, slave-whipping Christian master? Do you have any idea how many people died over the last 3000 years because of the Bible's justification of slavery?

Quote:

Exodus 21
20 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Quote:

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. 13 And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. 14 Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. (Deut 15.12f)

For some reason you fail to see the difference between Hebrews who could be held only as indentured servants (as whites were during colonial days) and slaves who had no right to be freed - ever.

Why do you suppose that God made rules for the humane treatment of Hebrews, but allowed all other slaves to be treated as property?

Even freed Hebrews had no right to their own children and wives who were enslaved:

Quote:

Exodus 21
2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

If he didn't want to be separated from his family, his only choice was to have his ear punched with an awl and be a slave to his master for the rest of his life.

Quote:

Leviticus 19
20 If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD. 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.

If a man slept with an engaged woman who was free, he would have been killed. There is no mention of any punishment for raping a slave woman who was not engaged.

Why do you suppose that God valued some people so much more than others?

0 Replies

Its bible vs bible in a no holds barred intrepretation battle. Who will win? Creeping agnosticism, of course.

0 Replies

micah wrote:

In New Testament times, slave labor was foundational to the economy of the Roman empire. About a third of the population was comprised of slaves. If the writers of the New Testament (or Jesus) had attacked the institution of slavery directly, the gospel would have been identified with a radical political cause at a time when the abolition of slavery was unthinkable. To directly appeal for the freeing of slaves would have been inflammatory and a direct threat to the social order.

This is a fallacy. The same amount of work could have been done by the same people hired as servants who were free to quit any time they liked. Yes, they would have had to be paid a little more, but not enough to ruin the economy - and think of the savings on medicine for lash wounds!

The gospel WAS a radical political cause at the time. It was inflammatory when rebellion against established religion was unthinkable. Do you think that a few words against slavery would have threatened the social order any more than the complete abolition of all the laws of the Torah? Shocked

Quote:

And perhaps because Jesus knew that the gospel would have the practical effect of doing away with slavery because it carried the seeds of the eventual complete abolition of slavery in the western world which may be why he did not openly condemn it however, the gospel did declare the spiritual equality of all people.

That is balderdash. The Bible carried no seeds whatsoever for the abolition of slavery, but did give explicit rules for the preservation of the institution.

0 Replies

Defender wrote:

Reading all of your comments in this thread, Frank, you've gone two directions:

1) You've asked why doesn't Jesus speak out about how "debasing" slavery is.
ANSWER - Preaching to the choir. These people have holidays celebrating their release from bondage. They know first-hand.

2) You've also asked why couldn't he have said something that would have led to an earlier end to slavery.
ANSWER - He couldn't. That would be interfering with the 'free will' theme inherent since the Garden of Eden. Slavery is a curse created by a man, and it will always be with us.

1) Jesus was preaching to people whose ancestors over a thousand years ago had been slaves, but felt that it was perfectly OK to own slaves themselves. They needed to be told that times had changed, and slavery was no longer a practice acceptable to God.

2) Did it ever occur to you that slavery interferes with the free will of the person who is enslaved? God demanded a lot from his people. Why do you suppose that he mandated behavior in so many other ways but not when it came to freedom for all?

No, slavery need not always be with us, if we are enlightened enough to demand that it end.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

But, if you read the Sermon on the Mount, and other examples of his ideal for our personal behavior, any Christian following Jesus' teaching would have treated 'slaves' in the same manner they treat their family. {Which I feel I should clarify would be to free them if they so desired, or pay them an honest wage, and keep a family unit together...sort of negating the term 'slave'.}

Christian slaveholders in the southern US had most certainly read the Sermon on the Mount, and presumably considered themselves followers of Jesus' teachings.

Why do you suppose that many (if not most) of them treated their slaves inhumanely, in accordance with the Old Testament rules of slavery as decreed by their God?

0 Replies

Thank you for your many thoughts and contributions, Terry.

As usual, they are of A+ quality.

0 Replies

Slavery did not exist in Jesus's era.
He did not condemn it because the idea had not yet been invented. Why did Jesus not condemn gay marriages, or the condition of gayness? He did not condemn John Kerry or mobile phones. There were no slaves in those times, only human and non-human.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Slavery did not exist in Jesus's era.

What?

This is sarcasm, right? Slavery was a common feature in antiquity. It existed in several forms, including debt slavery, sexual slavery, as well as the form better known to us in the 21st century of plantation slavery (acquired from the Carthaginians, if I recall correctly).

Slaves are mentioned in both Torah and the new testament. The "Church Fathers" wrote on it, and often were slave owners themselves. A subject of heated debate in the early church was whether or not slave could become Christians, since they did not have freedom over their bodies. In the literature of the period, slaves are described as appendages to the bodies of their owners, and therefore had little intrinsic value on their own. Could an entity that lacked free will actually convert, against the wishes of its owner? In addition, the inability of a slave to avoid "sin (peccatum) due to his lack of control over his person made the likelihood of salves becoming Christian unlikely.

Consider the admonitions toward continence promulgated in the early church. One accepted outlet for male sexual gratification that was not condemned was the use of slaves. If emphasis is placed on sexual sin, as it was among the Christians, how can a body that is incapable of refusing its use ever hope to achieve "salvation?" Especially when that body is explicitly approved for sexual use? The only way a slave could become truly "Christian" would be when its owner converted, and emphasized the same rituals and prohibitions on their household. This "christianity" would likely end if the slave was sold to a non-Christian.

Sorry for the long winded response.

0 Replies

from

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_petraitis/spirit_war.shtml

LRA = Lords Resistance Army

"Not having the benefit of being tutored at a military academy, Mr. Kony deduces a battle's outcome by setting toy guns, and helicopters on fire to see how the models will burn; thereby foretelling victory or defeat in an upcoming battle. LRA casualties are simply predicted by placing a finger in a glass of water.[20] And if Joseph Kony's spirit panel isn't giving him good military advice, the LRA leader can always count on "angels" for divine guidance on campaign strategy. The LRA's child soldiers are told that commands come from these angels, who commune regularly with Mr. Kony.[21] It must have been one of these heavenly messengers who provided Mr. Kony with the holy advice to expand the Ten Commandments to Eleven Commandments--the Eleventh Commandment being "Thou shall not ride a bicycle." It is common practice for civilians in the Acholi heartland to be punished when caught riding a bicycle, the main form of transport in the remote rural areas of Uganda. (Automobiles are out of the price range for many Ugandans.) Hundreds have had their buttocks slashed with a machete by LRA rebels for disregard of the Eleventh commandment.[22] The offending bicycles are put to the ax, with extreme prejudice by the Spirit warriors."

0 Replies

Steve

Get a grip on it, man.

Not sure what is going on with you -- but when you get back, please check in with us.

And maybe explain these last two posts.

0 Replies

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know