Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

they didn't see it as what we would now call slavery

Frank

nice one, lol

back later

ok back

1. fed up
2. had beer
3. pissed off with religious discusions
4. because I'm extremely pissed off with murderous thugs who brainwash children into monstrous barbarisms in the name of religion.

Semantics.

Really? The literature tends to contradict your statement. Certainly there was more chance of mobility between free and slave status, and there was also a third category, that of the "freedman" or manumitted slave, but I very much doubt these categories would be unfamiliar to the lay reader.

slavery is a part of humanity's history...get over it....the 'explicit' rules you refer to are mostly contained in the old testament....i've already explained why that doesn't apply to us today....thats why its called the old testament.......

in light of what paul said here:

'For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.'

--slavery may not have been such a bad thing spiritually....it's ironic, suffering has a way of revealing ones need for God...while many people today are rich and cozy and feel no need for God, however, their soul will surely wail and mourn after death when they realize that they have failed their own God by worshipping other Gods, like their car, their money, their home, their so called logic, or any thing else that comes before God.

Are you seriously suggesting that slavery is good for the soul?

i would think so....much like jail...

Micah

So you would rather offer arguments that being a slave is good for the soul than dare to consider the possibility that the pathetic god of the Bible is not really a GOD.

That is very sad.

When the awakening comes for you -- and the awakening will come -- I hope you are not repairing a roof or about to use a chain saw.

even Jesus said, "For he who is least among you - he is the greatest"

I don't get no respect.

Henny Youngman

Frank, In response to Steve's post (Feb 22, 1:09pm)

This is the New Testament folks, Hopefully it will serve as some enlargement upon Terry's response also.


Jesus was quite familiar with slavery. to wit--

Luke 7:1 to 7:10 (synopsis) An Army officer asked Jesus to save a valued ("dear to him") slave who was sick. Apparently (from the fable) Jesus complied.

Luke 12:37 "Happy are those slaves whom the master on arriving finds watching".

Luke 12:47 "Then the slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do in line with his will will be beaten with many strokes
(New World Translation of KJV)
Southern American Translation (effectually told by William Weld Brown, a former slave in the U.S.) "He that knoweth his masters will and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.")

Consequently it was regarded as a "Christian Duty" to beat your slaves. The Christian approval of slavery is implicit. IMO natch.

The same general idea leads to the "spare the rod and spoil the child" philosophies of fundamentalist Christian sects. Therefore it becomes a "Christian Duty" to perform corporal punishment upon children should they "sin".

This was taken to it's logical conclusion with the girl in Texas who drowned her children to save them from sin. She felt inadequate to the task of raising "pure" children so she "saved them" by killing them. Effective--yes?



Go figure the logic, I can't

What logic???

I never understood "Spare the rod and spoil the child."

Shouldn't that mean -not- to give corporal punishment? Like, cast the rod aside and buy the kid some candy?

I do think discipline is good but not corporal punishment. Sometimes people go too far the other way and their kids have no sense of values. Of course, it's probably better to err on the side of kindness. I want to be both kind and strict.

LOL, only if you take it as an imperative sentence Portal. Otherwise it's supposed to indicate cause and effect.

"This was taken to it's logical conclusion with the girl in Texas who drowned her children to save them from sin. She felt inadequate to the task of raising "pure" children so she "saved them" by killing them. Effective--yes?



Go figure the logic, I can't"

It is quite logical to me, if one accepts her basic premises. And assume she forgot "thou shalt not kill". But - presumably she thought any sin in killing was hers, and her kiddies would be joining the heavenly choirs...

Ought not theists who believe in a pleasant afterlife to greet death like a lover?

dunno bunny.

OH!

So much of life makes more sense now :wink: .

Could they be interpreting it wrong?

Frank, Re "What Logic?"

If you are aware of another persons "core beliefs", and we all have them, (even athiests ) then it becomes more or less possible to follow the train of thought that follows. Agreeing may be another matter.

Lets try a "core of belief" that would have been typical in Jesus's day and age.

There is a God and "Creator".
He has chosen some people to represent Him on Earth,
Then it follows that the "chosen" people have a "God given superiority" over the rest of us.
Since I am superior to you, as you are to the animals, I have a "God given" right, indeed a duty, to make you useful to me, as by being useful to one of Gods chosen people, you are being useful to the Lord our God and Creator.
If you are not useful to me then I must beat you as by not being useful to me you are usless to God and as Gods representative on Earth I must insure that you are properly chastised for "sinning against God".

Since I KNOW Gods will, due to my being chosen, you have no recourse but to obey me. You have no way of "knowing" what I "know" except by my telling you. And this you can know only imperfectly since you have not been "chosen".

IMO The "divine rights of kings', homosexuality as an abomination, slavery, papal infallibility, women as chattel, all follow from this basic premise. "There is a God, and he has revealed himself" through Moses or Joseph Smith, or Mohammed, or Martin Luther, or Billy Sunday, or James and Tammy Faye Baker."

I don't intent to pick in the Jewish society. To wit, Whosoever believith in Me shall not perish. It then follows that if you believe in Jesus you are effectually "chosen" and therefore superior. Or Mohammed, or Capitalism or whatever.

Need I point out that this premise has never been shown to be based in any "facts" at all. OK, I thought not .

Since all races, nationalities, sexes, or hair colors are superior to every other one then each one must enslave another if it can do it. It's simply Gods will that it be like that.

Was perusing and came across this--which I didn't see so long ago and didn't answer.

Because like most Christians, they dispense with the Beatitudes and Jesus' core contribution--and do as they please.

The Quakers are probably closest to following Jesus' suggestions. They were anti-slavery and actively worked witht he underground railroad.

It was a failure of people, not their directions in this case.