57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

 
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 02:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You're just going to go on beating this dead piece of crowbait, aint'cha, Frank?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 02:45 pm
@Joe Nation,
I agree. We have lots of books. And I see absolutely nothing in any that I have that indicate the early church fathers were "for the abolition of slavery."

Helios is correct...many of the early Christians were slaves. But many of the early Christians were slave owners also.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 02:46 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig, I did not reopen this thread. Others did. I am replying to them. If you have a problem with the discussion...why not go somewhere else?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 02:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

He might well have condemned it 7 times,
without it having gotten into writing. Who knows ?
Frank Apisa wrote:


That is why I wrote up above:

Well we can ask: Why do you suppose none of the writers who told us about what Jesus DID TEACH...ever mentioned that Jesus taught there was anything less than moral about slavery?

The fact remains that we have all sorts of indications about what Jesus thought about things. We cannot be sure if the indications are correct...or merely fabrications. But the fact is that we have absolutely no indication that Jesus ever saw anything wrong with slavery.
I have not read the entire thread, Frank.
Sorry if I duplicated your earlier contribution.

Jesus might have had 25 other likes and dislikes
that never made it into writing.

I 'm a libertarian. I voted for Goldwater and for Reagan,
yet I will stand up for my right to sell myself into slavery,
for a price that is acceptable unto me.
People can have all kinds of views and variations thereof.





David
0 Replies
 
Helios
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 03:02 pm
@Joe Nation,
Ha, good eye there. Early christian thinkers was what I was thinking, I don't know why I wrote fathers, I guess thinkers an d fathers rhyme lol. for ex. wilberforce.

Then there was the South who used the Bible to justify slavery.

I think the first to speak out against chattel slavery was the church before the 'western nation' started to do so, check your books for me will ya.

That isn't to say there have been corrupted popes, corruption in Church.

Forgive me, I'm a human.


Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 03:39 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Lustig, I did not reopen this thread. Others did. I am replying to them. If you have a problem with the discussion...why not go somewhere else?


Who said I had a problem? I'm just amused, is all.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 03:40 pm
@Helios,
Quote:
Forgive me, I'm a human.

Only if you say a sincere Act of Contrition for the sin of being.

Welcome to the conversation, Helios, but I fear you may be in deeper waters than you think. Around here if someone says "The blah blah blah were for the abolition of Slavery." the rest of us expect an actual piece of evidence to back up the claim.
Here's Aquinas or here's Augustine or here's a Papal Bull from the Council of Nicea......so you have to produce.

You've got a lot of digging to do if you intend to show that Early Church Thinkers were abolitionists or, indeed as Frank continues to point out,if they made any mention of slavery and the condition of slaves that in any way shows disfavor with the institution.

Joe(we'll wait)Nation
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 04:19 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
I would imagine that a newly established religion that had been persecuted pretty much since the outset, had enough to worry about without antagonising those in power more than necessary.


I can see logic in trying to imagine that Izzy but if I were to guess, you are probably more interested in what a well informed atheist would have to say about that. Laughing
Just kidding with you Izzy. Wink

I hope that you will at least consider the facts and opinions that I share with you and if you do not mind, could you let me know what the facts are that I share with you? "because I am uncertain of them myself.

A newly establish religion? I think this was a fact but what is the true origin of this religion because I do don't know?

All that I can do is make guesses or assumptions and you know how much I love doing that. Wink

Let me take you back to a time 500 years BC. We have Plato writing about his teacher he calls Socrates. In Plato's work we can find Socrates's apology.

From my understanding we get Plato's account of a highly advanced individual and if you read Socrates's apology you might agree with me or maybe not.

Now Socrates was being put to death for corrupting the minds of the youth but to this day I am uncertain what this corruption was, "maybe someone can feel me in."

Could this corruption be teaching the youth that there should be nothing to taboo to question?

If we were to go back and look at the old testament we will see that it was forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil " right and wrong "MORALITY" We should only believe what is told to us and that is it.

I do understand that I may be far from reality but I am using this as an illustration regardless.

We can see here that Socrates has pissed someone off can't we?
Can you imagine that a person as intellectual as Socrates not being able to write?

Could it have been that his writings were seen as so destructive to the youth that they were all destroyed? Maybe maybe not. We can be sure of one thing though and this is that we have someone asking too many questions and from here forward many more people may have started doing the same thing.

A few hundred years passes and what do we have but a bunch of people including Jewish sects from the surrounding area with different ideas about the nature of reality.

We may now have the birth of Christianity but with a different name "Therapeutae" according to history or should I say my my opinion. Laughing

OK we now have people who are thinking but still believe in God and these people are "out of their cotton picking minds because not only are they denouncing property and slavery but they are also scattered across the lands surrounding the Mediterranean sea.

This is a very bad thing for the ruling sociopaths that see nothing wrong with slavery so the only thing that the rulers knew to do was kill them all of but they were so wide spread that it was a non accomplish-able task because their ideas were well accepted by many as being morally correct.

The only solution that the ruling class could come up with was to use their morality but twist it and teach it as if it were the word of God and it has been "somewhat working from then on. The end.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 04:55 pm
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Could this corruption be teaching the youth that there should be nothing to taboo to question?


You're getting closer rl. The trouble is that if it is too taboo to question neither the prosecution nor the defence dare mention what it is. A problem Jesus had. Many others as well.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:13 pm
@spendius,
You may be correct but if I am not mistaken morality may be one of our newest "EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPTS" or should I say logical understandings that would not only benefit those who have empathy but the majority of sociopaths as well, but you should know me by now about how I like being proved wrong because this is how I learn.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:21 pm
@reasoning logic,
You will never learn anything whilst you bandy about the word "sociopaths" so gratuitously.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 05:22 pm
@spendius,
Please teach me teacher! Drunk
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:21 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
You will never learn anything whilst you bandy about the word "sociopaths" so gratuitously.


Please do not take any offense in the word "sociopaths" It has no more meaning than the word blind to me. It is not meant to be an insult nor is the word blind.
We all fall short. "I am not perfect nor do I know anyone else who is.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:44 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
You will never learn anything whilst you bandy about the word "sociopaths" so gratuitously.


If we are going to talk about slavery should we also include modern day slavery?

0 Replies
 
Helios
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 06:46 pm
@Joe Nation,
As early as the foundation of the catholic church, there isn't any strong indicator of messages against the institution of slavery, not in writings anyways.

Throw me the life saver over here, I'm drowning man...

It's interesting to see that Polycarp who used to be a slave when he was young, later when he was freed from the institution, did not advocate for the abolition of it. Social norms that made him accept it as a normal part of life maybe?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2012 11:12 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
Forgive me, I'm a human.

Only if you say a sincere Act of Contrition for the sin of being.

Welcome to the conversation, Helios, but I fear you may be in deeper waters than you think. Around here if someone says "The blah blah blah were for the abolition of Slavery." the rest of us expect an actual piece of evidence to back up the claim.
Here's Aquinas or here's Augustine or here's a Papal Bull from the Council of Nicea......so you have to produce.

You've got a lot of digging to do if you intend to show that Early Church Thinkers were abolitionists or, indeed as Frank continues to point out, if they made any mention of slavery and the condition of slaves that in any way shows disfavor with the institution.

Joe(we'll wait)Nation
Well, Jon (or Joe), u need not wait long, BECAUSE
I have ALREADY pointed out that:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Jesus exhorted everyone who did not already HAVE a sword,
to buy one. Luke 22:36

That is inconsistent with slavery.
Slaves r not free to buy weapons.
FREE men have the liberty to buy weapons.





David
I believe that addresses your point, albeit indirectly.





David
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 03:10 am
@Helios,
Quote:
As early as the foundation of the catholic church, there isn't any strong indicator of messages against the institution of slavery, not in writings anyways.

Throw me the life saver over here, I'm drowning man...

It's interesting to see that Polycarp who used to be a slave when he was young, later when he was freed from the institution, did not advocate for the abolition of it. Social norms that made him accept it as a normal part of life maybe?


Perhaps!

So let me ask you this. Are you saying that your response to my question "Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?" is...because Jesus simply accepted it as a normal part of life?

(If so, I wonder why he taught that we ought all love our enemies as well as those who are not our enemies? Hating enemies was a normal part of life also.)

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 05:12 am
@Helios,
Helios wrote:
As early as the foundation of the catholic church, there isn't any strong indicator of messages
against the institution of slavery, not in writings anyways.


Throw me the life saver over here, I'm drowning man...



It's interesting to see that Polycarp who used to be a slave when he was young,
later when he was freed from the institution, did not advocate for the abolition of it.
Social norms that made him accept it as a normal part of life maybe?
The prison system is essentially one of slavery,
explicitly exempted from the operation of the 13th Amendment, by its own terms.
When prisoners r released, how ofen do THAY raise their voices
for the abolition of prisons ??
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 05:27 am
While it is certainly a commonplace that the putative Jesus said to love one's enemies and do good to those who harm you, and leaving aside that we don't even have a reliable basis for asserting that he ever existed--it's more than a little silly to harp on what he did not say. The "scriptures" on which christianity is based are based on versions no earlier than the first half of the fourth century--as much as 300 years after the putative Jesus is thoguht to have lived and died. Given the number of contradictions in those texts, and the historical and geographic absurdities which appear in them, they can hardly be taken for reliable reports of what he did or did not say, if he ever existed. A lot of editing and interpolation can take place in three centuries. It is dicey enough to discuss what he is said to have said, it is the height of absurdity to focus on what one claims he did not say.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2012 06:00 am
@Setanta,
Absurdity is the order of the day when the project is the undermining of Christian teaching in regard to rumpy-pumpy without any suggestions of alternatives which are obviously either no teaching on the matter or secular regulation.

And discussing slavery in the absence of any definition of the term is patently absurd.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 03:01:07