Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@spendius,

Quote:

It is what they call the default position I think. Make something up about somebody and it magically makes their posts mean something different. It's a religious idea in a one-man church.

Thumbs up to this post!!! It seems many on here do this, or take this position far too often in my book!

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I think Spendius will want to be your best friend in the end.
He talks like that all of the time, " that is why we have farmerman and cicerone to correct him. lol

Yup.

Actually, I like Spendius. He puts lots of time and energy into using words. Most of them English words!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That's fine...I will drop it if you would like to, also...

If nothing else I enjoyed the conversations...And I applaud your etiquette toward me, a believer, even if your not (for I don't know, and you never stated what you are)

So many people on here, feel it is their mission in life to try to tear down religious...and like I said I truly value the fact you were very proper in these discussions...

As a matter of fact I would like to add you to my friends list...You can add me as well, if you would like too..

If you do not know how to do it, and want to...Just click my name, and under my profile click follow user...

Have a great day, I would not mind discussing other things with you, if your interested...

You can start a thread, or go under my Anything Goes thread, and post your questions...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

Thumbs up to this post!!! It seems many on here do this, or take this position far too often in my book!

This may be true about some people some times but if you think that it was the case with me talking about being intellectually honest and unbiased when researching information then you are very wrong and do not seem to be able to appreciate the intellectually honest and unbiased research I have shared with you. Smile

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

If nothing else I enjoyed the conversations...And I applaud your etiquette toward me, a believer, even if your not (for I don't know, and you never stated what you are)

It is sad that you have not paid as much attention and consideration to what others have paid to you and what you have said.

Frank's reply to you was.

The closest approximation of that we Agnostics have is, "I hope you see the light some day." Please understand that when offered, it is offered in the same spirit you might offer, "I will pray for you."

SpadeMaster, I hope you see the light some day.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I was actually not referring to you...I do not know what made you think I was...

Do you have a guilty conscience about something?? Wink

Like I said to you pages ago back in the thread You, Chights, and I go back and forth in...(you know the one I am talking about) I value you as a friend on here, and never mind, or take personally what you say...I know you not trying to hurt me...I know my friends, and I know my enemies...

Like I said back in that thread, I will never forget what you did, and what you said...When you had the guts and balls to stand up, and say what many of your fellow atheists would not admit... Wink

I value your perspective, and you as a friend!!

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Your right, I did miss that...but that doesn't mean I wasn't paying attention to him...

and honestly there are many different kinds of Agnostics, am I wrong?

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

there are many different kinds of Agnostics, am I wrong?

If you say so.

Quote:

I was actually not referring to you...I do not know what made you think I was...

Do you have a guilty conscience about something?? Wink Wink Mr. Green

Are you sure that you understood what Spendius was referring to when you made your reply to him? he was referring to my question about seizures, did you not see the word seizure in his post?

0 Replies

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

Sometimes I 've wondered about the genesis of that.

spendius wrote:

There is a body of psychological literature concerned with the matter as it appears in modern,
industrial society as a chosen enthusiasm or fetish.

It has a political bearing, supporting radical Individualism,
degrading docile reliance for one's existence upon the collective.

It is not by random chance
that most supporters of the Bill of Rights r right wingers like me.
(That is somewhat tautological.)

David

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Theres more pharisee than philosopher in you spendi

Yes--I know. Mine's a modern form. I adhere to the strict letter of the law of the scientific method. You should try it sometime.

I don't do philosophy. Philosophy is a cottage industry somewhat similar to the weavers in Providence who make cloth the old way for tourists to see although it won't last as long because philosophy is nothing to look at for bored families aimlessly driving around to relieve the boredom of their daily lives. An elderly gentleman sat in an armchair with wreaths of smoke drifting around his carelessly manicured silver/grey hairstyle weaving word patterns loosely associated with the relativity of nothingness is a sight hardly worth 5 minutes of a nuclear family's time.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I don't see the difference between docile reliance for one's existence upon the collective and active reliance for one's existence upon the collective.

The former seems to me to be but a literary form of eyelash enhancement.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I will agree to the extent
that the collective relies for its existence
upon the Individuals of whom it consists.

Individuals shud be self reliant,
hence the defensive emergency equipment.

http://www.proguns.com/images/used-guns/usedguns247-904/278taurus445.jpg

We Individuals need to keep the collective
on a short leash.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I will agree to the extent
that the collective relies for its existence
upon the Individuals of whom it consists.

That's semantic lipstick Dave. It is not individuals. It is the structures or coalitions of co-operation they build up.

1 Reply

@spendius,

DAVID wrote:

I will agree to the extent
that the collective relies for its existence
upon the Individuals of whom it consists.

spendius wrote:

That's semantic lipstick Dave. It is not individuals.
It is the structures or coalitions of co-operation they build up.

NO. The "structures" etc. r composed of INDIVIDUALS,
who constitute the collective. Society is the baby of the INDIVIDUALS
who create the damned thing by standing too close to one another.

Individuals r the creators, the parents, of society.
Society shud look UP to the Individual citizens as the gods of its Creation.

We need to keep our child on a very short leash.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Society shud look UP to the Individual citizens as the gods of its Creation.

It does do. Look at any rescue. Society hasn't always done that. It had to get structures of co-operation before it did.

0 Replies

This only for people who like to critically think.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I assume that's a claim to be a critical thinker.

Don't mind us rl. Dreams are free.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I assume that's a claim to be a critical thinker.

Don't mind us rl. Dreams are free.

Don't let me stop you from your dreaming, "carry on!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Because his agenda was not political and the Pharisees desperately wanted to paint him as a political threat to Rome, Jesus simply placed his message on a higher level i.e: "And fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Mathew 10:28 But politics killed him anyway. The sign above his cross read: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Charles Weston

2 Replies

@Charles W,

Quote:

Because his agenda was not political and the Pharisees desperately wanted to paint him as a political threat to Rome,

Are you certain that slavery was political rather than moral?

1 Reply

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know