Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@Frank Apisa,

So you don't think the teachings of Jesus were pragmatic? Hence your default to them being moral in order to render them questionable which allows you to evade questioning them pragmatically and remain running on the spot forever.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

If Jesus...or the god he worshiped had said that slavery was not a moral thing, do you suppose that we might have ended the practice earlier than 150 or so years ago?

It's unlikely. You say he condemned wanking and that has not been abolished.

Don't you think a definition of slavery is necessary before a discussion about the institution can proceed?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

yet he seemed to condemn that.

Why the "seemed". Do you not know for sure? Do you assume the reader will forget the "seemed" and conclude that he did condemn wanking despite you not knowing whether he did or didn't.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

So you don't think the teachings of Jesus were pragmatic? Hence your default to them being moral in order to render them questionable which allows you to evade questioning them pragmatically and remain running on the spot forever.

Try to deal with what I actually wrote, Spendius. We all know you can make things up and present rambling criticisms of the strawmen...but try to deal with what I actually wrote once in a while.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Don't you think a definition of slavery is necessary before a discussion about the institution can proceed?

Ya think so??? I think that would simply be a diversion. But I guess with your arguments on this issue...a diversion makes the most sense.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Try to deal with what I actually wrote, Spendius.

You brought up "moral reasons". I did deal with that. The difference between "moral reasons" and pragmatism is simply that the former allows you to remain symmetrically spinning on your own axis and the latter requires you to get real.

You're deploying a rather heavy battery of fatuous assertions old boy. I'm making no sense, I'm drunk, I'm not dealing with your posts, I'm presenting rambling criticisms--turn it up eh?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I think that would simply be a diversion. But I guess with your arguments on this issue...a diversion makes the most sense.

A guessed assertion following a seemed one.

Why would a definition of slavery before discussing it be a diversion? It is the very opposite to a diversion.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

You brought up "moral reasons". I did deal with that.

I did not bring up the “moral reasons”, RL did. I merely called attention to the fact that RL MIGHT be correct.

Quote:

The difference between "moral reasons" and pragmatism is simply that the former allows you to remain symmetrically spinning on your own axis and the latter requires you to get real.

I couldn’t care less what the difference is…I am merely asking why people suppose Jesus did not condemn slavery. Do you have a supposition to offer? If so, why not offer it instead of trying your usual evasions? (Or diversion, if you prefer?)

Quote:

You're deploying a rather heavy battery of fatuous assertions old boy. I'm making no sense, I'm drunk, I'm not dealing with your posts, I'm presenting rambling criticisms--turn it up eh?

I never said you were drunk...and you are making no sense on this issue, Spendius.

Are you prepared to offer a supposition for why Jesus did not condemn slavery or not?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

It may also be off topic, but it was a practice then to hate one's enemies, but Jesus did teach that we not do so for moral reasons.

Your post in a reply to LA. It is of course a non sequitur because you have no evidence that Jesus taught as he did "for moral reasons."

Quote:

Are you prepared to offer a supposition for why Jesus did not condemn slavery or not?

No. I have no idea what slavery meant. I don't recall it being an institution in Judea. In a society long familar with the practice I imagine anybody condemning it would be required to offer an alternative.

Many people on here condemn Christianity but fail to offer an alternative. That's why they are talking out of their arses.

Don't bother replying Frank. There is no discussing anything with you in a reasonable manner. Forget it. Forget Jesus. Forget slavery. But most of all leave me out.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Yo, Spendius...you can leave yourself out if you choose. But you seldom choose that...instead you choose to bluster.

I love ya, Spendius. Please stick around.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

It's stupid really, and you were right to see no sense in it.
He just took out the word slavery and put in rape.

That's like saying if abortion was the norm in these days should abortion be excluded from moral teachings?

Begging the question
It doesn't get the argument anywhere but just makes you go around in circles

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

Quote:

Begging the question
It doesn't get the argument anywhere but just makes you go around in circles

not quite aspy. You see if--

Quote:

That's like saying if abortion was the norm in these days should abortion be excluded from moral teachings?

that situation arises, as it has, it is only possible to include abortion in moral teaching by declaring that all those who have had a hand in an abortion are immoral. And with 50,000,000 since we all signed up, plus all the strands, that is getting to be impossible.

Simply to go in to bat for the unborn mite nowadays is to expose yourself to all sorts of crude insults and innuendos and one has to presume from the volume of it all that it is respectable and quite normal to conduct conversations in that manner. It is obviously acceptable and oftentimes encouraged.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Well I specifically chose abortion because during the time of Jesus, abortion was common and widely accepted.

I don't know what "reasoning logic" was trying to drive home with that poorly thought out question, but his question implies this circular reasoning.

Why was it left out of Jesus' moral teachings?
↓
Because it was the norm.
↓
Why was it a norm?
↓
Because it was not immoral at that time.
↓
Why was it not immoral at that time?
↓
Because everyone did it and it was acceptable.

2 Replies

@aspvenom,

Which then "reasoning logic" will then come up with a quip and say something along the lines. (If I guessed correctly and he is an atheist)

---

Of course, Jesus didn't address it because he was a human and not God, and if he was a God, he would've been better than that, and be smarter than human... blah blah blah.

---

I may be a fallen christian, but I do remember the scriptures that my guardians drove home to me when I was a child. And the thing I observed in my current state of limbo is that people complicate the scriptures on both sides of the playing field. Whether it be an atheist or a theist. each side is guilty of, as I said, complicating it.

Did they ever think that he spend his time talking about sins which could get in the way of someone coming to have a relationship with him.

The way I see it, Jesus is more concerned about the lonely mother, the doctor, or scared father and others involved than the baby itself. And you ask why does he not "care" for the baby, well since the baby is "pure" that baby is already given a seat next to him in heaven.

Same analogy relates to master and slave. Jesus' general teaching indirectly implied slavery is not good, but in the end, it is obvious that if the abusive master didn't change his lifestyle, he went down, and the slave went to paradise.

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

Quote:

Jesus' general teaching indirectly implied slavery is not good, but in the end, it is obvious that if the abusive master didn't change his lifestyle, he went down, and the slave went to paradise.

I doubt that. In fact, the apostles certainly did not think that either. They seemed to be content with the notion of slavery...with St. Paul going even further toward accepting it as moral.

1 Reply

I posted this at least a year ago somewhere high up in this thread:

There is every indication that Jesus was sympathetic to the Essenes, one of the three major Judaic sects of his time. He may even have been taught by them in early childhood. He is constantly quoted as speaking out against the practices of the Pharisees and the Saducees but there is no word said against the Essenes. From the description of his cousin, John the Baptist, it seems almost certain that John was, in fact, an Essene. Now, at least two generally reliable authorities -- Flavius Josephus and Pliny the Elder -- have both written that one of the characteristics of the Essene community was their opposition to slavery and insistence that each man perform his own labour.

Is it really too far-fetched to assume that Jesus may well have subscribed to this rule but saw no immediate reason to preach it? It simply was not a major priority and was probably not seen by him as a major moral problem.

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

I just don't recall any mention of slavery in Judea. The return to the Promised Land was a return from slavery. These were tribes.

The Greek and Roman economies ran on slaves. In Salammbo Spendius was captured and enslaved by the Carthaginians on the seas when he was hauling a ship load of abducted females to a wealthy port for auctioning off.

How would so many slaves be freed all at once? Even the US had to proceed gradually. There were many rich slaves in Rome. It was a social category. Like "blue collar".

Plenty of "free" men suffered great abuses. Pointing to abused slaves misses the point.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Ummm are we talking about Jesus or St. Paul?

early Christianity rarely criticised the actual institution of slavery obviously because it was part of a slave-master society.

Let me ask you this, did people in general for gay marriage and LG equality not a few decades back, no matter the religion or non religion? No, because society held back the freedom.

There is more than one variable at play here. Have you not realized it?

Last time I remember it, it is not the sole agenda of a religion to change the political status quo much. St. Paul was clouded by society's way I suppose.

And are you assuming that Jesus didn't condemn it once in his life? What if he did condemn it, but the scholars who edited the book was clouded by society's norm and deleted that portion of it?

Another assumption, Jesus actually existed.

I was a theist, was agnostic for some time, now I'm atheist, slowly transition to an atheistic Buddhist. I've been through most of that spectra.

All this what if's. We are not going to get anywhere with this question in the OP.

I have a paper due friday, so please don't feel offended if I don't respond for a few days.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Addressing to spendius and Lustig:
I forgot that, good thing you guys mentioned that.

Another assumption by the OP question is that slaves were treated like they were in America.

I don't know my Judean history, so I don't know if slaves were treated as people, and not abused like here in America, which decreases the severity of moral wrongness, and as Lustig mentioned, to even make it not an issue at that time.

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

Quote:

Ummm are we talking about Jesus or St. Paul?

Quote everything that Jesus wrote...and I will answer that question.

Quote:

early Christianity rarely criticised the actual institution of slavery obviously because it was part of a slave-master society.

I see. So...GOD was afraid of offending a slave-master society????

Quote:

Let me ask you this, did people in general for gay marriage and LG equality not a few decades back, no matter the religion or non religion? No, because society held back the freedom.

There was a question in there?

Quote:

There is more than one variable at play here. Have you not realized it?

You would be amazed at what I realize.

Quote:

Last time I remember it, it is not the sole agenda of a religion to change the political status quo much. St. Paul was clouded by society's way I suppose.

Have I suggested that it be the "sole" agenda?

Quote:

And are you assuming that Jesus didn't condemn it once in his life?

I am saying that what Jesus said at a wedding was reported. It seems to me that if he condemned slavery, it would have been reported. Do you think not?

Quote:

What if he did condemn it, but the scholars who edited the book was clouded by society's norm and deleted that portion of it?

Then perhaps the book ought to be discarded as useless.

Quote:

Another assumption, Jesus actually existed.

I am assuming you exist. I assume George Washington existed. I am assuming all sorts of people existed. Your point is?

I was a theist, was agnostic for some time, now I'm atheist, slowly transition to an atheistic Buddhist. I've been through most of that spectra.

Quote:

All this what if's. We are not going to get anywhere with this question in the OP.

I was just asking people for some supposition. I find it interesting how people react to my asking that of them.

Quote:

I have a paper due friday, so please don't feel offended if I don't respond for a few days.

No problem. If you want to discuss this further, I always have time. This is a very, very old thread, based on a thread in Abuzz that was even older.

0 Replies

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know